Hi 

HI 

IkIktcL' 



JhIII 



J1 



,a ! 



■ 



Hftft 









COMMENTARY. 



CRITICAL, EXPOSITORY, AND PRACTICAL, 



GOSPEL OF JOHN, 



FO?. TEE USE OF 



MINISTERS, THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS, PRIVATE CHRISTIANS, 
BIBLE CLASSES, AND SABBATH SCHOOLS. 







D7 






JOHN J. 


OWEN, D.D. 






NEW 


YOKE: 




LEi 


WITT & ALLEN 


, 24 WALKER 
1860. 


STBEET. 




wv <s&/. 


J*/f& 




/* 


- flPZ- 




-« 



©2 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S60, by 

JOHN J. OWEN, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the SouthernDistrict of 

New York. 



JOHN F. TEOW, 

PRINTER, STEREOTYPER, AND ELECTROTTFER, 

4S & 50 Greene Street, 
New York. 



*^<*\\\ % .^V > 



XV 



/°J& 



O' 



<£ PEEFACE 



J3 7 



The Commentary on John here presented to the Christian public, 
constitutes the third volume in the contemplated series, the one on 
Acts alone remaining to he published. The same general plan and 
prii iples of interpretation, which in the preface to the first volume 
referred to as characterizing this series, have been closely ad- 
i I to in the preparation of the present volume. The author has 

m unwearied pains not only to evolve the true sense of every word 
1 passage, but also to render it plain and easy of comprehension to 
the common reader. This however he has found to be a task of no 
ordinary difficult}*. So elevated and spiritual are the themes of this 
Gospel, that it requires incessant watchfulness on the part of the ex- 
positor, against the use of technical and scholastic forms of ex- 
pression, understood only by the learned, or those who have made 
the science of exegesis a professional study. 

In the preface to the first volume, special mention is made of the 
works to which I have had access in the preparation of this Commen- 
tary on the G-ospels. Through the kindness of a highly valued min- 
isterial friend, I have been enabled to avail myself of that rare and 
excellent old work, " Hutcheson's Exposition of John," London, 
1657 ; which for richness of exposition and profound views of the 
doctrinal features of this Grospel, has in my judgment no superior in 
any of the commentaries on this portion of Scripture. 

Prof. Howard Crosby's Scholia on the New Testament, yet in 
manuscript, but soon I hope to be published, have furnished me val- 
uable hints and suggestions, all of which, as well as those derived 
from other commentators, I have aimed in every instance to duly 
acknowledge. If at any time I have failed in this recognition and 



IV PREFACE. 

acknowledgment of the labors of others, it has resulted from inad- 
vertence and not design, It has given me unfeigned pleasure to in- 
troduce to my readers the names of those who have won for them- 
selves an honorable distinction, as sound and able expositors of divine 
truth. The names of Henry, Doddridge, Scott, Stier, Tholuck, 
Alford, Stuart, Hodge, Barnes, Alexander, Jacobus, and others, are 
dear to the church of Christ, as those whose labors have been directed 
to the elucidation of Grod's word, and the rendering of it more plain 
and familiar to His people. 

It is the author's sincere prayer that his humble labors in this 
department, may not be wholly useless, and especially that this vol- 
ume upon which he has spent so many toilsome but pleasant hours, 
may contribute its mite to the better understanding of the Gospel 
of John, of which Chrysostom says, that " it conveys such good 
things that those who receive and guard it with diligence and ear- 
nestness, are no longer men, no more abide upon earth ; they have 
placed themselves above the things of time, they are partakers of the 
state of angel's, and thus dwell upon earth, as if it were heaven." 

JOHN. J OWEN. 

New York, May 10, 1860. 



PEEFACE TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 



John was the son of Zebedee a fisherman of Galilee (Matt. 4 : 21). 
The place of his residence was probably Bethsaida, the birth place 
of Philip, Andrew, and Peter (John 1 : 44). His mother's name 
was Salome (see Mark 15 :40; 16 : 1, compared with Matt. 27 : 56). 
It is quite evident from what is related in Mark 1 : 20, that Zebedee 
was a man in good circumstances. This appears also from the fact, 
that Salome was one of those women of Galilee who ministered of 
their substance to Jesus (compare Luke 8 : 2, 8, with Matt. 27 : 55, 
56 ; Mark 15 : 40, 41). John also is said to have taken the mother 
of Jesus to his own home (John 19 : 27), which, while it furnishes 
no evidence that he had a house in Jerusalem, indicates beyond 
question, that he was in a condition to receive and support her. His 
social position may also be inferred from the fact which he records 
of himself (18 : 15), that he was known to the high priest. This 
family distinction may have been the inciting motive for the request 
made by the mother of John and James, that Jesus would assign 
them the highest place of dignity in the kingdom which he was about 
to establish (Matt, 20 : 20, 21 ; Mark 10 : 35-37). 

It is generally supposed that John was himself the disciple, whom 
he records in 1 : 35-40, as walking with Andrew and seeking an in- 
terview with Jesus, in reference to whom John the Baptist had just 
before pronounced so high a testimony, as he was walking on the 
bank of the Jordan. If so, he must have been with Jesus from the 
very beginning of his ministry, and was therefore an eye-witness of 
almost every thing which he relates of his Divine Master. From the 
time of his call to the discipleship, he became the devoted friend and 
follower of his Lord, and most zealously, although sometimes in a 
way which met with a slight rebuke from Jesus (Mark 9:38; Luke 
9 : 54-56), espoused his cause and manifested a jealousy for his 
honor and dignity. There must have been in him a rare combina- 
tion of moral excellence and personal amiability, to have received 



VI PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 

and merited the appellation, " the disciple whom Jesus loved" (13 : 
23; 19:26,^20:2; 21:7,20). 

His public discipleship, although as above stated he probably at- 
tached himself to Jesus at Bethabara beyond Jordan (1 : 28 ; 35-39), 
commenced at the same time with that of Peter, Andrew, and his 
own brother James (Matt. 4 : 18-22 ; Mark 1 : 16-20; Luke 5 : 1- 
11). Subsequently to this he was chosen with eleven other disciples 
to the apostleship (Matt. 10 : 2-4 ; Mark 3 : 14-19 ; Luke 5 : 13-16). 
He was one of the three favored ones admitted to the most confiden- 
tial intercourse with Jesus, being present with Peter and James at 
the raising of Jairus' daughter (Mark 5 : 37 ; Luke 8 : 51), on the 
Mount of Transfiguration (Matt, 17 : 1 ; Mark 9:2; Luke 9 : 28), 
and in Gethsemane (Matt. 26:37; Mark 14:33). His boldness 
and devotion to his master were evinced in the fact, that although 
at first he fled in company with the other disciples (Matt. 26 : 56 ; 
Mark 14 : 50), he nevertheless returned and followed Jesus into the 
palace of the high priest, and was present during his examination and 
condemnation. He was the only one of the apostles recorded as 
having been present at the crucifixion, and to him was committed by 
his dying Lord the care and support of his mother (19 : 26, 27). 

On the report of Mary of Magdala (20 : 2), in company with 
Peter, he repaired to the sepulchre, and was the first of the apostles 
who came to the tomb of Jesus, although in entering it he gave pre- 
cedence to his elder and leading companion (20 :6-8). He was one 
of the seven to whom our Lord made his remarkable appearance at 
the sea of Tiberias (21 : 1, 2), and was there honored by Jesus with 
a prophetic intimation, that he should tarry on earth until he came, 
as we have shown in the comments on that passage, to take vengeance 
upon his Jewish enemies and close up the old ceremonial dispensa- 
tion (21 : 22). 

After our Lord's ascension from Olivet, in the company of his 
fellow apostles, he returned to Jerusalem and there remained await- 
ing the descent of the promised Spirit. In company with Peter, a 
short time after the day of Pentecost, he repaired to the temple, 
where they performed a miracle (Acts 3 : 1-8), not only intrinsically 
great, but of much relative importance, in that it furnished occasion 
for the first hostile movement on the part of the priests and rulers 
against the infant church planted at Jerusalem. No farther mention 
of John by name is made in the Acts, until we find him sent with 
Peter on a mission to Samaria, to confer upon those who had been 
baptized as the fruits of the great awakening under the preaching of 
Philip (Acts 8 : 5-12), the gift of the Holy Ghost (vs. 14-17). After 
they had discharged the duties of their mission, and preached the 
gospel in many of the Samaritan villages (v. 25), they returned to 
Jerusalem. From this time his name disappears from the Acts, ex- 



PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Vll 

cept in 12 : 2, where it is incidentally mentioned. That he remained 
however for some time at Jerusalem, is evident from Gal. 2: 1, 9, 
where we find his name mentioned in connection with Paul's second 
visit to Jerusalem (Acts 15 : 2). After this no further mention is 
made of him in the sacred narration, and in regard to his subsequent 
history in common with that of the other apostles, we are wholly de- 
pendent upon the traditions of the church. 

It is evident from Gal. 2 : 9 as above cited, that John Was in Je- 
rusalem as late as A. D. 50 or 51. That he was not present on the 
occasion of Paul's last visit to the city, is equally evident, for in that 
case his name would most unquestionably have been associated with 
that of James (21 : 18), as on the former visit special mention h^d 
been made of him in connection with James and Peter. It is un- 
certain, however, whether his absence was a temporary or permanent 
one, on the occasion of Paul's visit here referred to. The latter is 
the more probable conjecture, and it is the general opinion that he 
left Jerusalem and Judea and went abroad among the Gentiles, soon 
after Paul's second visit to the ecclesiastical metropolis. The best 
modern chronologists think that he went into Proconsular Asia, about 
the time when the war broke out in Judea. If so, it must have been 
about the year A. D. QQ, or the time when Paul and perhaps Peter 
suffered martyrdom. That previous to this time he did not take up 
his permanent residence in Asia, is quite evident from the fact, that 
no mention is made of him, or any salutation sent him by Paul in 
his Epistle to the Asiatic churches. A reason also may be found for 
his making at this time Proconsular Asia the field of his labor, in the 
fact that the martyrdom of Paul had deprived those important 
churches of his spiritual guidance and oversight, at a time when they 
preeminently stood in need of one having the spiritual gifts and 
ofiicial dignity of an apostle of Jesus Christ. He abode in Ephesus, 
at least a considerable part of the time, until the fourteenth year of 
the reign of Domitian, at which time he was banished by a decree 
of the emperor. According to Eusebius, he returned to Ephesus in 
the time of Nerva, where he died of extreme old age, A. I). 101, in 
the third year of the reign of Trajan. 

In regard to the natural temperament of John, it is quite evident 
that he was bold, ardent, impetuous, one who scorned falsehood and 
hypocrisy, and was ever ready to give expression to his sentiments in 
the most simple and straightforward terms. It was probably these char- 
acteristics which formed the basis of his friendship and intimacy with 
Peter. Kindred spirits they were, although in moral heroism, espe- 
cially during the earlier days of their apostleship, John was greatly 
the superior of his friend. I can see no evidence which Tholuck and 
some others find, that John's disposition and turn was of a feminine 
cast. On the very contrary, while he possessed an open, frank, loving 



7111 PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL OP JOHN. 

disposition, it was evidently connected with all that was bold, ener- 
getic, and manlike. It is thought by some expositors, that the epi- 
thet Boanerges, sons of thunder, was bestowed upon John and James 
on account of their impetuous spirit ; although not without reason 
others interpret it as predictive of their bold and powerful style of 
preaching. John's sincerity and frankness, which permitted no con- 
cealment of his opinions, or compromise with any form of error, is 
abundantly manifested in his writings, especially in his Epistles. 
Every portion of them is pervaded by his tender and loving spirit, 
and yet for plain, direct, out-spoken, burning denunciation against 
those who would seek to depreciate the glory of his Lord and turn 
away believers from the truth, they have no parallel in all God's word, 
not even in the most denunciatory of the prophetical writings. The 
epithets liar, antichrist, murderer, devil, are hurled against the ene- 
mies of truth, with a momentum increased ten-fold by the spirit of love 
and tenderness, which like a soft and sunny atmosphere bathes all 
his utterances. Neander styles him " a man of burning love and 
burning hate," of which Dr. Jacobus well remarks, that it " was the 
same disposition showing itself in opposite directions." 

As might be expected in a writer of such an ardent and impetu- 
ous temperament, the style of John is singularly direct, plain, and 
simple. There are no involved constructions ; no complex and long 
extended sentences, with clauses elaborately arranged, adjusted, and 
bound together by logical connectives; no line of argumentation 
which lies so fairly exposed to the eye of the reader, that he may pur- 
sue it step by step, through premise and deduction with undeviatiug 
accuracy to the conclusion. The sentences are short, and so simple of 
construction as to be almost colloquial in style. The sentiment at first 
glance would seem so clear and apprehensible, as to be fully open to 
the feeblest intellect. But the more these great utterances are pon- 
dered upon, the more evident does it appear, that to fathom their 
depth requires the most patient, protracted, and intense application ; 
and even then unless taught of the Spirit, no exertion of intellect 
will suffice to attain to their full meaning. In this very feature con- 
sists a remarkable peculiarity of the Gospel by John, as well as of 
many other portions of God's Word, that such is its adaptation to 
persons of all classes and grades of intellect, that the learned and un- 
learned alike find the highest pleasure and profit in studying the 
truth therein revealed. The announcement in 1 : 1, is expressed in 
language which may be comprehended by a child of ordinary capa- 
city and intelligence, and yet the most towering human intellect will 
never penetrate the mystery of that sublime revelation. The same 
may be said of many other doctrines and declarations of our Lord re- 
corded in John's Gospel. They are spread out to the eye of the 



PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. IX 

reader, calm and placid as the summer's sea, but their vast and mys- 
terious depths are wholly beyond the soundings of human reason. 

In regard to the time when John published his Gospel, there has 
been a great diversity of views. Some have affixed to it as late a 
date as A. D. 97 or 98. Such was the opinion of Chrysostom and 
Epiphanius. Against this view it is argued, that the Gospel possesses 
in its style too much vigor to be the production of one who has 
entered upon extreme old age. Alford cites Lucke, as remarking 
that the style is that of a matured, but not of an aged writer. This 
criticism perhaps leaves too much out of account the agency of the 
Holy Spirit, in quickening, strengthening, and inspiring the sacred 
writers for the work assigned them. It is nevertheless true, that, 
unless we take the ground that the sacred penmen were mere aman- 
uenses of the Spirit, their respective mental habits and characteristics 
as influenced and modified by age as well as other circumstances, 
are not to be left out of account in settling a question like the one 
before us. No one can read this Gospel, and not see in its style, 
if not the vivacity of 3-outh. yet the vigor and clearness of detail 
which mark the years of full manhood, rather than the imbecility 
of extreme old age. On the other hand, it appears very clear 
that its publication followed that of the Synoptic Evangelists. He 
evidently wrote for Gentile Christians ; he adds explanations to Jew- 
ish names and customs ; he opposes errors, which were not rife until 
after the publication of the other Gospels. All this indicates a date 
of publication, some time after John came to Ephesus, which as we 
have shown was not until Paul had been withdrawn by martyrdom 
from that important field, or about A. D. 66. That he did not pub- 
lish his gospel while a resident in Palestine, is very evident from the 
internal and external evidence that it was written for Gentile read- 
ers. That he should publish it immediately on his arrival at Ephe- 
sus (A. D. 66), is not at all probable. We are justified therefore in 
referring it to a date at least as late as A. D. TO, probably as Alford 
and others conjecture, somewhere between the years 70-85. 

Attempts have been made by skeptical and infidel writers to dis- 
prove the genuineness of John's Gospel. It is alleged that no men- 
tion was made of it by Polycarp the disciple of John, nor by Bar- 
nabas, Clemens Komanus, or Ignatius. But not to say that the si- 
lence of these writers proves nothing conclusive as to the canonicity 
of the Gospel or its authorship, being negative testimony, a slight 
examination will suffice to show, that it did not fall within the scope 
or design of these writers to refer to John's Gospel or make cita- 
tions therefrom. Arrayed also against the silence of these writers, 
we find the names cf Irenssus — who in his youth had conversed with 
Polycarp, the disciple of John, and in whose writings are frequent 
quotations from this Gospel — Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, 



X PEEFACE TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 

Clemens Alexandrinus, Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius of Alexan- 
dria, and Eusebius, all whose writings abound with allusions and 
citations, proving beyond all doubt, the genuineness and authenticity 
of the Gospel. The adversaries of Christianity, Porphyry and 
Julian, refer to John's Gospel. Its canonicity is also proved from 
the ancient Syriac version, the Peschito. The voice of antiquity 
is therefore almost unanimous in assigning its authorship to John. 
The argument from these ancient writers is presented in detail by 
Tholuck, and is so conclusive as to remove every doubt as to its 
authorship and time of composition. The internal evidence that it 
was written in the apostolic period and by John, is of the most irre- 
sistible nature, but it is too vast a subject to be here entered upon. 
The attempt of Baur to prove that the Gospel is spurious, and was 
foisted upon the church in the latter part of the second century, 
has been fully and satisfactorily answered by Ebrard and more re- 
cently by Luthardt. 

It is the unanimous testimony of tradition that this Gospel 
was written in Greek, at Ephesus, for Gentile readers. Although it 
abounds in Hebraisms, yet it approaches nearer to classic Greek than 
any of "the other Gospels. This shows that John must have lived in 
Asia Minor some time before its composition. Unfavorable criticisms 
have been made upon his frequent employment of the Greek connec- 
tives for hut and then. But a careful examination will show that 
these particles are in hardly a single instance needlessly or incor- 
rectly used. His short and pithy sentences enabled him to dispense 
with the use of many connectives, which in writings like those of 
Paul, would be found in great abundance. The frequent use of the 
slightly adversative but, was the natural result of his emphatic, 
energetic style, which abounds in antitheses, sudden turns of thought, 
rapid and unexpected transitions, and the introduction of new points 
and aspects of the subject under discussion. As to the employment 
of the Greek prepositions, I know of no writer, not purely Hellenistic, 
who uses them with more discrimination and effect than John. I 
have taken occasion to refer to the extraordinary power of some of 
his prepositional forms of expression, in the Notes on certain passages. 
On the whole we think that none of the New Testament writers ap- 
proached nearer to classic Greek, than did John. 

It remains to say a few words in regard to the design of this Gos- 
pel. This has been so fully descanted upon in the comments on 1 : 1, 
that comparatively little need here be said on the subject. It ap- 
pears that about the time when John came to Ephesus, the Gnostic 
heresy was beginning to creep into the churches, and under the here- 
siarch Cerinthus and others, to assume an organized and rampant 
position. This heresy arose from the union with Christianity of the 
fanciful elements of Grecian philosophy, especially in regard to the 



PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Xi 

Deity and the emanations or ceous, which were supposed at different 
periods of time, to have proceeded from the Infinite and Supreme 
God. Prof. Burton, in his Bampton Lectures, very clearly sets forth 
the principles of the Gnostic theology : " The supreme God, accord- 
ing to the Gnostics, had dwelt from all eternity in a pleroma of in- 
accessible light ; and beside the name of first Father, or first Princi- 
ple, they called him also Bythos, as if to denote the unfathomable 
nature of his perfections. This Being, by an operation purely men- 
tal, or by acting upon himself, produced two other beings of different 
sexes, from whom by a series of descents, more or less numerous ac- 
cording to different schemes, several pairs of beings were formed, 
who were called ceons, from the period of their existence before time 
was, or emanations, from the mode of their production. These suc- 
cessive seons or emanations appear to have been inferior each to the 
preceding; and their existence was indispensable to the Gnostic 
scheme, that they might account for the creation of the world with- 
out making God the author of evil [which in their estimation was an 
intrinsic and essential element of matter]. These seons lived through 
countless ages with their first Father. But the system of emanations 
seems to have resembled concentric circles, and they gradually de- 
teriorated as they approached nearer and nearer to the extremity of 
the pleroma. Beyond this pleroma was matter, inert and powerless, 
though coeternal with the supreme God, and, like him, without be- 
ginning. At length one of the aeons passed the limits of the pleroma, 
and meeting with matter, created the world after the form and model 
of an ideal world, which existed in the pleroma, or the mind of the 
supreme God." 

This Creator of the world or Demiurgus, as he was called, was 
not therefore the supreme Deity, although proceeding from him as an 
aeon or emanation. Hence as the creator of the world, on the prin- 
ciple that matter was evil, he was regarded as the author of evil, and 
it was to remedy this evil which even the supreme God could neither 
destroy or reduce to its primeval and inactive form, that Jesus Christ, 
who together with the Holy Ghost, were the two last aeons produced, 
made his advent on earth. The principal object of his mission was 
to reveal the true God to men, and acquaint them with the way of 
securing his favor, so that they also in due time might enter the 
sacred precincts of the divine pleroma. The knowledge cf God 
through Christ being the principal object to be sought after, the au- 
thors of this theory assumed the name of Gnostics. 

It was to oppose and counteract this insidious and fatal heresy, 
that John seems to have composed and published his Gospel. He 
commences by a declaration in his bold, simple, straightforward man- 
ner, that Jesus Christ, so far from being an aeon or emanation, was 
in the beginning with God, and was himself God ; that the creation 



Xll PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 

was to be attributed to him and not according to the G-nostic theory, 
to Demiurgus, or any other of their so called seons. Prof. Burton 
remarks, that John was by no means the first to apply the term Logos 
to Christ. He considers the term to have been borrowed by the first 
Christian converts from the Gnostics, and to have been applied by 
them to Christ, and that it is one of the peculiar objects of John's 
Gospel to show in what sense the term Logos can be applied properly 
to Christ. 

It will be remembered that one of the tenets of Gnosticism, was 
the inherent evil of matter. Hence the Gnostics denied that Jesus 
Christ was possessed of a truly human body, inasmuch as this would 
have allied him to evil, and incapacitated him to free men from the 
bondage of matter. They clothed him therefore in an unsubstan- 
tial or phantasmical form, physical only in appearance ; and hence 
they took the name Docetce, from a Greek verb signifying to seem. 
In opposition to this heresy, John affirms (1 : 14), that the Logos be- 
came flesh and dwelt on earth, and that his body possessed all the 
physical properties which belong to the bodies of men (1 John 1:1; 
4:2). 

John's design in composing his Gospel was evidently twofold, to 
prove Christ's supreme divinity and complete manhood or humanity. 
This will appear manifest to every intelligent reader, especially in 
those great discourses of our Lord recorded in chaps. Y.-X. and in 
his farewell discourse to his disciples and his prayer in chaps. XIV.- 
XVII. This feature of his Gospel is more fully brought to view in 
the comments which accompany the text. Alford well and succinctly 
expresses the subject-matter of the Gospel in the single proposition : 
" that the Eternal Creator Word became Flesh, and was glorified 
by means of that work which he undertook in the flesh." 

Of the subdivisions of this Gospel, Alford cites that of Lucke as 
the simplest and most satisfactory : (1) the prologue I : 1-18 ; (2) 
the first main division of the Gospel, 1 : 18-XIL : 50 ; (3) the second 
main division, XIII. : 1-XX:31; (4) the appendix, chap. XXL 
Luthardt's general division is : (1) Jesus the Son of God, chaps. I.— 
IV. ; (2) Jesus and the Jews, V.-XII. ; (3) Jesus and his own, 
XIII.-XX. ; (4) the appendix, XXL Under these leading heads, 
he arranges the subdivisions with much skill and minuteness. It 
is very difficult, however, to construct a syllabus of this Gospel, 
which shall be based on divisions designated by chapter and verse, 
for the simple reason that the thoughts and utterances are so blended 
and interfused, that the argument under no one head or general 
division is so exhausted, that it does not receive additional confirma- 
tion and illustration in other portions of the Gospel. 

It seems to me therefore preferable, both in a logical and sestheti- 
cal point of view, for the reader, instead of relying upon any abstract 



PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL OP JOHN. Xlll 

or compendium of the Gospel, to possess himself first of the great and 
leading theme, which is : Jesus Christ, the Eternal and Incarnate 
Son of God, the Light and Life of the icorld. Then with a reliance 
upon the aid of the promised Helper and Comforter (see N. on 14 : 
16), let him slowly, patiently, carefully, read the Gospel through in 
course, weighing, sifting, and comparing the great truths and facts 
which meet his eye, and aiming as far as possible to map out their 
true and relative position in regard to the central and pervading 
theme of the Gospel. Let this reading of the whole Gospel in course 
be repeated again and again, until the great outlines are indelibly 
impressed upon the mind, and an eminence is gained from the sum- 
mit of which this divine Scripture may be surveyed at a glance, with 
its lines of thought all converging to one common centre, JESUS 
THE SON OF GOD AND SAVIOUR OF MEN, — let this 
process, I say, be entered upon and faithfully carried out, and it will 
be found far better than a blind reliance upon artificial helps and 
tables of contents, which, as above said, from the very structure 
and composition of the Gospel must prove inadequate and defective. 

The following remarks of Claudius, cited by Tholuck (Introduc- 
tion p. 22) are so beautiful and apposite, that I take pleasure in 
making a full quotation of his words : " I love best of all to read in 
St. John. There is in him something so perfectly wonderful — dusk 
and night, and the quick lightning throbbing through them. The 
soft clouds of evening, and behind the mass, the big full moon bodily ! 
— something so sad, so high, so full of presage, that one can never 
weary of it. When I read John, it always seems to me that I see 
him before me, reclining at the Last Supper on the bosom of his 
Lord, as if his angel held the light for me, and at certain parts would 
place his arm around me, and whisper something in my ear. I am 
far from understanding all I read, yet often John's idea seems to 
hover before me in the distance ; and even when I look into a place 
that is entirely dark, I have a presension of a great and glorious 
sense, which I shall some day understand, and hence I catch so ea- 
gerly at every new exposition of the Gospel of John. 'Tis true — 
most of them only ruffle the evening clouds, and never trouble the 
moon behind them." In the same spirit, Tholuck himself remarks 
of this wondrous Gospel : " The noble simplicity on the one side, on 
the other, the hovering nature and the dim mystery of the narration, 
the tone of grief and longing, with the light of love shedding its 
tremulous beam on the whole, these impart to the Gospel a charm, a 
peculiar originality, to which, out of the writings of John, no paral- 
lel can be found." 

May it ever be studied by God's people with a prayerful spirit, 
and with a becoming zeal to enter into the full sense of its great ut- 
terances. May the Spirit of light illuminate the mind and guide the 



XIV PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL OP JOHN. 

labors of all who now or hereafter seek to explain this portion of 
divine truth. It is a deep, exhaustless, fresh-flowing fountain, from 
which the loving and obedient disciples of Christ may draw water as 
from the well of salvation — even the living water which springeth 
up in the soul unto everlasting life (John 4 : 14 ; 7 : 37, 38 ; Rev. 
21:1). 



THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 



The exposition of the gospel of John 
is attended with far greater difficulties 
than that of the other gospels. This 
arises not so much from the style, which 
is remarkably clear and simple, as from 
the subject itself, which may be concisely 
expressed in the twofold proposition : 
the Eternal Word became incarnate, and 
is the Light and Life of man. Around 
these great central truths of John's 
gospel, other important truths revolve, 
such as the rejection of Christ by the 
Jews, the fulfilment in him of the 
ceremonial law, the necessity and inex- 
plicableness of the new birth, the union 
of the believer with Christ, his body 
and blood the spiritual sustenance of 
the soul, the certainty and universality 
of the resurrection and final judg- 
ment. These themes and others kin- 
dred and subordinate to them, are des- 
canted upon by John, so that his gospel 
is not to be regarded as designed to fill 
up chasms in the history of our Lord, 
which were left by the other Evange- 
lists, but to teach the realities and 
nature of the interior and hidden life 
of the believer, and the union of the 
soid by faith with the Eternal Son of 
God. The external acts of our Lord 
were the main theme of the Synoptic 
gospels ; the spiritual essence and life 
of Jesus — apprehended and received 
into the soul by faith, and raising it to 
fellowship and communion with God — 
constitute the principal burden of 
John's gospel. Both these aspects of 
the mission of Christ are important, and 
even essential, to a full and right under- 
standing of the relation subsisting be- 
tween Him and the believing soul. 

The order in which these two phases 
of our Lord's life and ministry, as found 
in the gospels, are presented," is worthy 
of notice. It would have been un- 
suited to the wants of the infant church, 
had John's gospel been written before 



those of the other Evangelists. The 
first three gospels were needed to meet 
the general inquiry which everywhere 
would be made, as to the circumstances of 
the birth, life, doctrine, miracles, death, 
resurrection, and ascension of Christ. 
After the church had become conversant 
with these historical facts, the way was 
prepared to enter more deeply into the 
spiritual nature of his mission, to de- 
velop more fully and explicitly his eter- 
nal and divine nature, and to show the 
respective offices and functions of each 
Person of the blessed Trinity, in the 
great work of man's redemption. 
John's gospel therefore very appropri- 
ately followed those of Matthew, Mark, 
and Luke, in which were recorded more 
especially the acts and sayings of our 
Lord. 

CHAPTER I. 

1-18. Preface to John's Gospel. 
The position assigned by Dr. Robinson 
and other harmonists to these opening 
verses which relate to our Lord's di- 
vinity, is immediately after the Tempta- 
tion. It has always seemed to me, that 
the appropriate place for this preface 
would be the very commencement of 
the Harmony. The section in which 
the pre-existent nature of Christ is so 
fully made known, should most surely 
stand in the very forefront of the 
gospels, when arranged in accordance 
with the probable order and sequence 
of events. But this is, however, a mat- 
ter of comparatively little consequence. 
The great fact of his divinity, as here 
taught, stands forth conspicuous, and 
like a sun irradiates not only the gospel 
of John, in which it is found, but also 
the other gospels, where this truth is less 
distinctly revealed, and is to be gathered 
from the divine works of Jesus rather 
than from any formal doctrinal state? 
ment. 



JOHN. 



CHAPTER I. 

IN the beginning a was the Word, 
and the Word was b with God, 
4 and the Word was God. 



oPr, 8 : 22, 23, &c. 
Ee. 1 : 



Col. 1 : 17 

; & 19 : 13. 



1 Jo. 1 : 1 : 



1. This verse is the great proof- 
text of the supreme divinity of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore has 
been subjected to the ordeal of more 
severe criticism, than perhaps any other 
portion of God's Word. In the limits 
assigned to these notes, I cannot make 
extensive reference to the different ex- 
positions of this verse, or the conflict 
of opinions and fierce discussions to 
which it has given rise. I must con- 
tent myself with a brief and simple 
statement of the truth, which I deem 
to be here taught, and which, although 
one of the sublimest that can chal- 
lenge the attention of man, yet lies 
so conspicuous on the very face of 
the passage, that it can emphatically 
be said, that he may run that readeth 
it (Hab. 2 : 2). The doctrine of the 
eternal divinity of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, seems impossible to be expressed 
in clearer and more emphatic terms than 
here made use of; and every attempt to 
refute or throw discredit upon it, must 
be abortive, so long as this great text j 
stands, as it does, on an immovable ! 
foundation, proof against all the shafts j 
of criticism, or charges of absurdity, J 
with which the opponents of Christ's j 
divinity are ever ready to assail it. I 
When we take into consideration its I 
conspicuous position in John's gospel, j 
standing as it does in the foreground 
of his evangelium, as the great key to the j 
right understanding of the sublime and j 
spiritual truths therein contained, we j 
cease to wonder that the opponents of i 
the supreme divinity of the Son, have I 
endeavored in various ways to set aside ! 
its authority, by boldly denying its 
genuineness, or frittering away its power 
by mere verbal and shallow criticisms. 
Against all these efforts to impugn its I 
authority, it has ever stood and will J 
continue to stand, in its unassailable 
integrity, giving clear and calm utter- J 



2 d The same was in the begin- 
ning with God. 



5 Pr. 8 : 30 ; ch. 17 : 5; 1 Jo. 1 : 2. 

c Phi. 2 : 6 ; 1 Joi 5 : 7. 

d Gc. 1 : 1. 



ance to one of the most sublime and 
mysterious truths ever revealed to 
mortals, and one which lies at the 
very foundation of every hope of sal- 
vation through the atoning blood of 
Christ. 

In the beginning, i. e. at the time of 
the creation of the universe. Compare 
Gen. 1 : 1, where reference is had to the 
same great time-period. But here the 
expression has necessarily a more en- 
larged signification, comprehending the 
whole eternity past, when as yet no 
created being or thing had been called 
into existence. Word. The ancient 
heathen philosophers were in the habit 
of regarding the Supreme God in two 
aspects, one as existing in himself, and 
the other as developing himself by his 
operations. This was especially a 
favorite notion with the Platonic school. 
Creation was ascribed by them to the 
Nous or Divine Intelligence, which they 
went so far as to call the Second 
God. 

This twofold aspect in which the 
Divine Mind, in its uncreated and un- 
seen essence, and its active develop- 
ment or manifestation, was regarded, 
found its place also in the Jewish writ- 
ings, and became a favorite dogma of 
the Jewish Rabbins. After the return 
of the Jews from Babylon, the Scrip- 
tures were translated into the Chaldee 
language, because the Jews from their 
long residence in Chaldea, had forgot- 
ten their own tongue. This Chaldee 
version, about the time of our Saviour's 
advent, was translated into Greek. 
Amongst other singularities introduced 
from the philosophical speculations of 
the age, was this, that every place in 
the Hebrew version, where it is said 
" God appeared," &c, the translators 
say " the Word of the Lord appeared." 
Prof. Stuart remarked once in the hear- 
ing of the writer, that such instances 



CHAPTEE I. 



3 



occur no less than 600 times. This 
singularity is to be traced to the Orien- 
tal philosophy, which pervaded the Jew- 
ish mind after the captivity, and tinged 
all their writings and speculations. 

The early Christian Fathers were in- 
fluenced in no small degree by this 
view of the Deity, as a Supreme Intel- 
ligence, acting through and developing 
Himself by the Word which proceeded 
from Him. They received this from 
the Platonic notion of God, as sustain- 
ing the twofold relation of Theos and 
Nous, God and Intelligence, above re- 
ferred to. In adopting this view, or at 
least in seeming to conform to the Pla- 
tonic school by employing these terms 
in relation to God, they hoped to 
recommend themselves to the heathen 
philosophers, and thus do an essential 
service to the cause of Christianity. 
Justin Martyr says that the Logos 
anciently appeared to mankind, because 
the great God could not be manifest to 
man. This philosophy was in full vogue 
in the time when John wrote his gos- 
pel. In the latter part of his life he 
went to Ephesus, and there resided for 
a number of years, and could not but 
have been conversant with the Greek 
philosophy, and its influence in modify- 
ing the doctrinal views of the church, 
especially in relation to the mode of 
the Divine existence. 

It was then a wide-spread and gen- 
eral belief, that God could only be 
known by his outward manifestation or 
expressed Word. As a very natural re- 
sult, this Word came gradually to be 
personified in Hebrew usage, and espe- 
cially in the Chaldee Targums. This was 
still further developed in the idea of this 
Word as an emanation from God, but 
not a distinct personality, which view 
gradually assumed the form of the 
Gnostic series of emanations or JGons, 
having a real personal existence, of 
whom Jesus Christ was the chief iEon, 
and was sent down from heaven to 
rescue lost men from the power of evil, 
and restore them to the favor of the 
supreme God. 

Now it was in reference to this no- 
tion of the unseen and supreme God, 
displaying or developing himself by his 



Word as an emanation of himself, 
which notion was incorporated into all 
the philosophical speculations of the 
day, that John began his gospel by a 
simple and sublime announcement, that 
this Word or emanation was a distinct, 
independent, personal existence, dwell- 
ing from eternity with God, and being 
himself the true and supreme God. 
This great text was designed to contro- 
vert and demolish every existing theory, 
that Jesus Christ was an inferior deity 
sent from God, or that he was an 
emanation in any sense whatever, or 
that he was the personified Word or 
power of God. It claims for him noth- 
ing short of supreme divinity, coeval, 
coexistent, and coessential with God. 
This explicit declaration of his divine 
nature and independent existence, is 
very properly placed at the beginning 
of John's gospel, because the whole 
gospel scheme is bereft of its power 
and vitality, unless correct views are 
taken of the person and dignity of 
Christ. This verse constitutes as it 
were the text of the gospel," all which 
follows being but the expansion and 
illustration of the great truth that Jesus 
is the Eternal Word, who became in- 
carnate, and suffered and died for the 
sins of the world. 

TIic Word was with God. The dis- 
tinct personality of the Logos is here 
affirmed. He was not a mere emana- 
tion or personified attribute of God, 
but a distinct, living, self-existent per- 
son, who was with God in the whole 
eternity past in substantial, inseparable, 
and ineffable union. The proposition 
rendered with, is not the usual one ex- 
pressive of accompaniment or connec- 
tion with, but one which denotes the 
closest proximity, at, with, by the side 
of. When, as here, it is followed by 
the Greek accusative, it signifies a con- 
tinual cleaving or adherence to the ob- 
ject towards which the relation of 
union is expressed. It therefore de- 
notes the closest and most indissoluble 
union, together with distinct and inde- 
pendent personality, which latter idea 
would have been obscured, had the 
form of expression been was in God, 
that is, included in the Godhead. See 



JOHN. 



N. on 16, 27, where this great idea is 
expressed under the form, I came out 
from God, i. e. from a state or condition 
of the most intimate union and com- 
panionship with God. 

And the Word was God. The su- 
preme divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ 
is here declared in the plainest and 
most unequivocal terms. No criticism 
has availed to destroy or impair the 
testimony of these few simple words, 
as to the dignity of Jesus Christ, and 
the place he should occupy in our idea 
of the great and eternal God. Alford 
remarks, that the form of the words is 
strictly parallel with "God is a spirit," 
in v. 24. The absence of the article 
in the original, has been seized upon by 
some critics in justification of the trans- 
lation, "the Word was a God." But 
aside from the grammatical fact, that 
the omission of the article was neces- 
sary to mark God as the predicate, and 
no more invalidates the application of 
the term to the supreme God, than it 
does in vs. 13, 18, where the article in 
the original is Avanting and yet the ref- 
erence is plain to Jehovah — the criti- 
cism is refuted by the well-known fact, 
that the Jews believed in only one 
God, and John therefore would not 
have asserted what he knew to be false, 
that the Word was a God, showing 
himself thereby to have been a poly- 
theist. As it regards the structure of 
the sentence, it conforms to the pre- 
ceding clause, where distinct personality, 
and at the same time essential union 
with God, is attributed to the Eternal 
Word. Had the words before us been 
and God was the Word, there would 
have been, as Alford remarks, an ob- 
vious contradiction to his previous as- 
sertion, by which he had distinguished 
between God and the Word. The 
three clauses of this verse have a well- 
marked correspondency, the first teach- 
ing the eternity of the Word ; the 
second, his personality and companion- 
ship with. God ; the third, his supreme 
divinity. The clauses are climacteric, 
or rattier rounded to such complete 
fulness, as to leave no doubt in re- 
gard to the true nature of the Lo- 
gos. Each clause teaches a sublime 



and glorious truth, and at the same 
time confutes an error ; the first, that 
the Logos was not eternally pre-exist- 
ent, but was a creation or emanation 
from God ; the second, that the Word 
was the manifestation or development 
of the unseen and infinite God, and as 
such had no distinct personality; the 
third, that the Word was a second or 
inferior God, a derived being, and 
therefore subordinate in his essential 
nature to the supreme God. All these 
errors, Avhich, in one form or other, 
were prevalent when John wrote his 
Gospel, are confuted by the terms of 
this grand and simple annunciation. 
It hardly need be remarked that the 
word God, in the second clause, must 
of necessity be referred to the Father, 
with whom the Word has dwelt from 
eternity, while in the third member, it 
refers to the Godhead or to the sub- 
stance and essence of God. To sum up 
then the doctrine of this great passage, 
the first clause teaches the uncreated 
and pre-existent nature of the Logos; 
the second, his distinct personality ; 
the third, his supreme divinity. Such 
an amount of truth, and of such vast 
and sublime import, is condensed no- 
where else in so brief a compass. 

2. Tlie same was in the beginning, &c. 
This is an emphatic repetition of the 
sentiment of the first and second clauses 
of the preceding verse. As the writer 
was about to ascribe to the Word a 
creative work (v. 3), and in v. 14 an 
incarnation and sojourn on earth, it 
seemed proper in view of this wondrous 
union of the Logos with humanity, to 
reaffirm His distinct personality and 
pre-existent nature. Here the word 
God, is to be taken in the sense of the 
Father, which it has in the second 
clause of v. 1. The same; literally 
this, that is, the Logos spoken of in the 
preceding verse. The writer seems 
to anticipate an objection, that it might 
possibly have been some other being 
than the Incarnate Logos, who was thus 
essentially one with God. But the 
strong demonstrative affirms that it was 
the Logos and no other, who was with 
God in the beginning. 

3. The Evangelist now proceeds to 



CHAPTER I. 



3 e All things were made by 
him; and without him was not 
any thing made that was made. 

e Ps. 33 : 6 : Col. 1 : 16 ; ver. 10 ; Ep. 3 : 9 ; He. 
1:2; Be. 4:11. 

ascribe to this Being, whom he has de- 
clared to have been with God from 
eternity, and to be himself verily God, 
the works of creation, thus furnishing 
additional and confirmatory truth of 
his supreme divinity. By all tilings 
is here meant, not the Socinian idea of 
a moral creation or the gospel dispen- 
sation which was inaugurated and 
established by our Saviour, but the 
whole unive rse both morn l nnrl physipnl. 
This was called into existence by the 
creative power of the divine Logos, who 
in the first verse is declared to be God. 
The worlds that fill the immensity of 
space, the suns and systems of the uni- 
verse, the countless intelligences that 
stand in God's immediate presence, or 
dwell in those portions of His domin- 
ions assigned to them, are all the work 
of his omnifie and creative power. 
Were made ; literally, began to be, came 
into existence. The verb here implies 
not such origin as results from natural 
causes, or what is termed the laws of 
nature, but that which is produced by 
a special and efficient agency, declared 
here to be the divine Logos. The nature 
of the subject forbids our referring it to a 
mere change from one form of existence 
to another, the idea being most evidently 
the production or creation of the uni- 
verse out of nothing. In this same 
sense the verb is used in v. 10. By 
him. T he scriptural r epresentation is 
that the universe was c reaigd_.bv___the 
Father tlTrough~his Son (Eph. 3:9; 
He^jrHrT-^TTToTtirsuch a sense, how- 
ever, as to make the latter a mere in- 
strument or agent. The idea seems 
rather expressive of a concurrent unity 
of purpose in the work, the decree of 
creation, so to speak, being issued by 
the Father, and the Son carrying it into 
execution. This concurrent unity of 
purpose in calling the material and in- 
tellectual universe into being, by which 
the Father is said to have performed 



4 f In him was life ; and 9 the 
life was the light of men. 

/Ch. 5:26; 1 Jo. 5: 11. 
gCh. 8: 12; &9: 5; & 12: 85,46. 



the work of creation through the Lo- 
gos, is not to be lost sight of in the 
text before us ; but yet both here and 
in the passages above cited, the context 
refers it to an independent creation, 
furnishing the very highest proof of 
the supreme divinity of the Word. To 
regard it as teaching that the Word per- 
formed the work of creation by derived 
or delegated power, would bereave it 
of all pertinency, as confirmatory proof 
that the Logos, t he Crea tor nf iha.. 
u nivers e, is the true and supreme God. 
The pronoun him, refers to the Logos as 
a distinct personality, and thus fur- 
nishes additional proof that the Word 
was not a mere external manifestation 
of God. 

And ivithout him, &c. The ascription 
of creation to the divine Logos is here 
repeated in a most emphatic negative 
form. It is quite usual with John to 
employ both forms in the expression 
of weighty and emphatic truths. This 
negative portion of the sentence is a 
denial of the Gnostic idea of the eter- 
nity of matter. " They set matter, as 
a separate existence, over against God, 
and made it the origin of evil ; but John 
excludes any such notion." Alford. 
See Isa. 45 : 7. Without him, i. e. 
apart or separate from him. Not any 
thing; literally, not one thing. Of course 
matter is included in the creation here 
referred to. Was not any thing made, 
&c. The translation might be, not any 
thing exists which does exist. Every thing 
in the whole universe of mind and 
matter which exists, was brought into 
that state of existence by the Logos. 
Language could not be made to express 
with greater definiteness and com- 
prehensiveness this great truth. 

4. To this same Eternal Word is here 
assigned the authorship of life, for in 
him ivas life, cannot be explained to 
teach that the Word was simply a liv- 
ing being, or had merely the principle 







JOHN. 



5 And h the light shineth in 

h Ch. 3 : 19. 



of life in himself, which, after the pre- 
vious assertion that he was God and 
the Creator of the universe, would be 
to the highest degree trifling. The 
sense must be that in him zvas the source 
of all life, that is, that in Him resided 
that vivifying power by which life was 
communicated to the universe of being. 
This of course implies that life was in 
Him in its original and essential state. 
It is a disputed point, whether life is 
here to be taken in its widest sense of 
all life, including that which is natural 
as well as moral ; or in the more special 
sense of spiritual life. I can hardly have 
a doubt that while the former view is in 
itself true, yet that here the sole refer- 
ence is to spiritual or moral life. This 
appears to be placed beyond a doubt 
by the -next clause, where this life is 
declared to be the light of men. There 
can be no question, that moral illumi- 
nation or instruction and guidance is 
here referred to (see N. on Matt. 5 : 
14). To refer it to the general and 
well-known fact, that in the vegetable 
and animal world light is essential to 
life, is too low an idea for the grand 
argument which is here being carried 
on. That law of nature in regard to 
the animal and vegetable kingdoms, 
may furnish an analogy by which we 
may see how essential is moral light to 
spiritual life. But it here does nothing 
more. The whole context onward 
shows that as the Teacher and Giver of 
spiritual life, the Logos is here declared 
to be the light of men. This may fur- 
nish a reason why the term Logos or 
Word, is employed to designate the 
Person in the blessed Trinity, through 
and by whom the moral universe which 
He had called into being, was to be 
made acquainted with the being and 
attributes of the unseen God. The 
article is employed in the original with 
light, and designates this as the light, 
that is, the only true light (see v. 9), 
given to be possessed by man. This is 
not however to be placed in the same 
category with the omission of the 



darkness ; and the darkness com- 
prehended it not. 



article, referred to in Note on v. 1. In 
the Jewish belief there was but one 
God, and the absence of the article 
would not destroy or impair that funda- 
mental doctrine of the Jewish faith ; 
whereas there are many sources and 
forms of light, and it was necessary to 
point out the light here spoken of as 
inhering in the Logos, as that only 
which deserved the name. Besides the 
article was omitted in v. 1, to mark 
distinctly the word God, as the predi- 
cate, but here such a distinctive omis- 
sion was unnecessary. 

5. The general effect of this shining 
light upon the darkened world is now 
brought to view. The argument that 
moral light is referred to in the pre- 
ceding verse, is here corroborated be- 
yond the shadow of doubt. And the 
light. The article in the original refers 
it to the light just spoken of. Shineth. 
The same word is used of the shining 
of the sun in Kev. 1 : 16 ; 8 : 12 ; and 
of a lamp in 1 Pet. 1:19. It is here 
employed figuratively of the Sun of 
Kighteousness, whose rays alone can 
dispel the moral darkness which rests 
upon the earth. Darkness here refers 
most obviously to the spiritual igno- 
rance and alienation from God, which 
characterize the whole race of man, 
until enlightened by the rays of divine 
truth. The whole world lies in wicked- 
ness (1 John 5 : 19), and so gross and 
impervious is this moral darkness, that 
it does not comprehend or admit the 
light, and hence is not benefited by its 
rays. The present tense is here em- 
ployed of a general or universal truth. 
It denotes what has been, and will 
continue to be, the reception which 
the world gives to the heavenly 
light, which falls in such brightness 
and purity from the great Source of 
light. And is here equivalent to yet. 
The word comprehended, is not to 
be interpreted of an intellectual in- 
sight into the nature of the light or 
truth here spoken of, but the taking 
hold of or admitting it into the mind, 



CHAPTER I. 



6 H i There was a man sent from 
God, whose name ivas John. 

7 k The same came for a wit- 

tMal. 3:1; ML 3:1; Lu. 3 : 2 ; ver. 33. 



so us to apprehend and realize its pow- 
er. The imagery of the word is found- 
ed upon such darkness as results from 
fogs, or a hazy, murky atmosphere, 
which will not admit the rays of light, 
and hence is a more impervious dark- 
ness than that of night. In v. 11, the 
rejection of Christ by the Jews is spoken 
of in almost the same terms, in which 
the rejection of divine truth by the 
world at large is here referred to. 
Unbelief and sin are generically the 
same, whether manifested in the rejec- 
tion of the light of revelation or that 
of nature. See Rom. 1 : 21 ; 2 : 12-10. 

6-17. The Evangelist now proceeds 
to speak of the manifestation of the 
Light by the incarnation of the Eternal 
Word, of whom John the Baptist was 
the forerunner and witness. Yerses 
6-8 are in a manner parenthetical, their 
general design being apparently to pre- 
vent any mistake, which might arise in 
regard to the character and mission of 
John. In vs. 19-36, this same train 
of thought is resumed, and the mission 
of John as the forerunner of Jesus, 
more fully brought to notice. After the 
brief reference made to John in vs. 
6-8, the writer reverts again to the 
Word, as being the true Light, believ- 
ed on by those who were born of God, 
although unknown to the world and 
rejected by his own chosen people (vs. 
9 : 13). Of the superiority of the In- 
carnate Logos (v. 14) John bears wit- 
ness, proclaiming at the same time the 
richness and fulness of grace which 
came through Jesus Christ (vs. 15-18). 
6. TJiere was a man. A common for- 
mula in the commencement of a nar- 
rative. See Luke 1 : 5. The word sent, 
belongs in construction to man, and 
not to the verb was. The phrase sent 
from God, signifies one who was divinely 
commissioned. See Mai. 3:1. The 
same prepositional construction in its 
highest and most literal sense, is em- 
ployed of the coming forth of Jesus 



ness, to bear witness of the Light, 
that all men through him might 
believe. 

Is Ac. 19 : 4. 



from God, in 16 : 27, on which see Note. 
Wliose name, &c. See Luke 1 : 13, 63. 
7. The same (i. e. John) came for a 
witness, &c. This denotes the purpose 
for which he had been sent from God. 
The words for a witness, are more fully 
expressed in the next clause, to bear 
icitness of the Light. This shows how 
subordinate was the position and office 
of John, compared with that of Christ. 
He was nothing more than a herald 
and witness of the Messiah; and yet 
such was the dignity of the Logos as 
declared in vs. 1-5, that to be His her- 
ald or forerunner, was one of the great- 
est honors which could be conferred 
upon man. That all men, &c. This 
denotes the end for which he was to 
bear witness of Christ, namely, that 
men might believe on him and acknowl- 
edge his claims when he appeared. 
The public ministry of John began sev- 
eral mouths before Christ came to be 
baptized by him. Ample time and op- 
portunity was therefore given to the 
nation, to reflect upon the testimony 
which he gave of the approaching ad- 
vent of the Messiah. At the same time, 
the interval between John's annuncia- 
tion and the public appearance of Je- 
sus, was not so great as to permit his 
message to be effaced from their mind. 
Might believe, i. e. might have the most 
indubitable evidence that Jesus was the 
promised Messiah. While it was a fact 
that comparatively very few yielded to 
the testimony of John in regard to Je- 
sus, yet there was a general preparation 
of heart through the earnestness and 
power with which he proclaimed the duty 
of repentance, which rendered the subse- 
quent preaching of Jesus far more suc- 
cessful, we have reason to think, than it 
would otherwise have been. The wis- 
dom of the arrangement by which John 
was to precede Jesus and prepare the 
way for his ministry, is not to be im- 
pugned, because it did not result in the 
acknowledgment by the whole people 



JOHN. 



8 He was not that Light, hut 
was sent to bear witness of that 
Light. 

9 l That was the true Light, 
which lighteth every man that 
cometh into the world. 

of Jesus as their Messiah. A great pre- 
paratory work was accomplished, ad- 
mirably suited to the nature of the 
mission of Jesus, which was to lay the 
foundation of a kingdom of peace, pu- 
rity, and righteousness, to be coeval 
with the history of man. 

8. He ivas not that Light, i. e. the 
Light spoken of in the preceding con- 
text. In his own sphere he was, how- 
ever, "a burning and a shining light" 
(5 : 35), yet only as he reflected the light 
of truth, as it shone from the face of 
Jesus Christ. But was sent, &c. An 
emphatic repetition of the object and 
purpose of John's ministry. The verb 
was sent, is very properly supplied by 
our translators. A similar ellipsis is 
found in 9 : 3 ; 13:18; Mark 5 : 23. To 
bear witness of that Light. The same 
words translated in v. 7, to bear witness 
of the Light. 

9. That was the true Light ; literally, 
the Light, (viz.) the true, was that which, 
&c. The emphasis is imparted to the 
word true, by its being thus placed af- 
ter the noun to which it belongs as an 
attribute. This clause explains why 
John himself was not the Light 
here spoken of. He was indeed a 
light, but not the true (i. e. the original 
or underived) light. Which lighteth 
every man, &c. The construction of 
this clause is such, that the word com- 
eth, may refer to man or which (i. e. 
the Light). The former reference is 
adopted in our English version, but it 
seems so unnecessary an appendage, 
that I am induced to prefer the latter 
mode of construction. The translation 
would then be : this is the true Light, 
which coming into the world lighteth ev- 
ery man. Alford constructs and trans- 
lates : the true Light which enlighteneth 
every man, came into the world. But 
this is too harsh a construction to suit 
the original, and less in accordance 



10 He was in the world, and 
m the world was made by him, and 
the world knew him not. 



I Yer. 4: Is. 49:6; 1 Jo. 2: 8. 
mVer.3; He.l:2; &11:3. 



with either the previous or subsequent 
context than the more usual method of 
explanation, which regards the senti- 
ment of the verse, as an emphatic reas- 
sertion that Christ was the true light 
of mankind, rather than an anticipation 
of the declaration soon to follow, that 
the Light here spoken of came into the 
world, or in other words, that the divine 
Logos became incarnate. Which light- 
eth is expressive of a general fact, re- 
ferring to the past as well as the pres- 
ent and future. The present tense is 
employed in the enunciation of general 
or universal truths. The words every 
man, refer the declaration here made 
to Gentiles as well as Jews. It does 
not follow however from this, that all 
men so receive the Light as to be saved 
thereby. This is expressly denied in 
v. 5, where the darkness or moral ig- 
norance and insensibility of men, is de- 
clared so gross as to be impervious to the 
rays of divine truth. The being and per- 
iections of God are revealed in the clear- 
est light in His word and works, and 
yet men are heedless of His claims up- 
on their love and obedience, because, 
as our Lord himself informs us (3: 19), 
they love darkness rather than light, 
because their deeds are evil. In re- 
gard to the Light here spoken of, 
while it must be referred primarily to 
the personal advent of our Lord into 
this world (see 8 : 12), yet it includes all 
the manifestations which, as a part of 
the redemptive economy, He makes of 
himself, by his works, providence, moral 
government, the voice of conscience, 
and the like. See Kom. 1 : 19, 20. 

10. He was in the zvorld. The pro- 
noun is wanting in this clause, but is 
very naturally supplied from the clause 
which follows. The word Light, and 
the pronoun referring to it in the pre- 
ceding verse, are neuter; but now 
the masculine pronoun is employed to 



CHAPTER I. 



11 n He came unto his own, and 
his own received him not. 

n Lu. 19 : 14 ; Ac. 3 : 26 ; & 13 : 46. 

o Is. 56 : 5 ; Eo. S : 15 ; Ga. 3 : 26 ; 2 Pe. 1 : 4 ; 

1 Jo. 3:1. 



denote the personality of the Light 
spoken of. He was in the world does 
not here refer to the providential pres- 
ence of the Word, but to his real per- 
sonal presence in bis state of incarna- 
tion. As has been remarked (Xote on 
v. 9), we may include in the personal 
advent of Jesus Christ, as a part of the 
redemptive economy thereby estab- 
lished, all the manifestations of God 
to man by his works and word, yet the 
incarnation of the Word is that to 
which special reference is here made. 
The world, both in this and the follow- 
ing clause, refers to the created world, 
the abode of men, who in the last clause 
under the same term world, that is the 
world of mankind, are charged with ig- 
norance of Him who was their Creator, 
and whose incarnate presence was 
among them. And the ivorld (i. e. and 
although the world) ivas made by lorn. 
See v. 3. This clause heightens the 
perverse ingratitude and rebellion of 
the world, in not receiving and ac- 
knowledging its Creator. And (i. c. 
and yet) the world knew him not, that is, 
did not recognize and acknowledge 
him, as the Messiah or one sent of God. 
World in this member refers to man, 
the only created being on earth made 
capable of knowing God. It does not, 
here, refer of necessity to the wicked 
or unbelieving world, as opposed to 
believers, there being no antithesis 
expressed or implied, by which the 
righteous are designated as receiving 
the Incarnate Word, in a manner be- 
fitting his high dignity and benevo- 
lent mission. It must therefore mean 
the world of mankind, not so strictly in- 
clusive of all, however, as to embrace 
such persons, as Simeon and Anna and 
others who were waiting for the conso- 
lation of Israel. In regard to the ig- 
norance here referred to, it was by no 
means excusable. The incarnation of 
Jesus Christ was accompanied by such 
Vol. III.— 1* 



12 But ° as many as received 
him, to them gave he power to 
become the sons of God, even to 
them that believe on his name : 



abundant proof, that none could reject 
the evidence of its truth and reality, 
unless blinded by a wicked and per- 
verse heart. 

11. His own, i. e. the Jews, who 
were his own people. This verse is an 
advance on the preceding one. Even 
his own covenant people, who were his 
peculiar possession, received him not as 
the long expected and promised Mes- 
siah. This rejection of him by his 
own countrymen, was not however 
universal, as appears from the next 
verse. 

12. There is a slight chasm of thought 
between this and the preceding verse, 
which is readily filled up by the reader : 
(some however received and acknowl- 
edged him as their Messiah) and as 
many as did receive him, &c. Poioer is 
here a very comprehensive term, im- 
plying not only right and privilege, but 
power to attain to the filial relation 
here spoken of. This power was con- 
ferred upon men by the atonement of 
Jesus Christ, which removed all the 
obstacles in the way of man's salvation 
ai'ising from a violated law. The idea 
of freedom, license, liberty of choice, 
is also implied in this word. See Acts 
1:7; 5:4; Rom. 9:21; 1 Cor. 7 : 37. 
The right of sonship here spoken of, 
is secured by faith in Jesus Christ, by 
which the believer is justified and adopt- 
ed into God's family, and made an heir 
with Christ of the glory which is to be 
revealed. See Rom. 8 : 14-18. Sons 
of God, i. e. true worshippers of God ; 
those who have been born of the Spirit. 
See v. 13. Even to them, &c. An em- 
phatic expansion of the idea contained 
in the first clause, as many as received 
him. This reception is declared to be 
a belief in his name, i. e. faith in him as 
the Redeemer of mankind. The origi- 
nal is so constructed, that the words on 
his name, are the object and end of the 
faith spoken of. 



10 



JOHN. 



13 * Which were born, not of 
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, 
nor of the will of man, but of 
God. 

14 q And the Word r was made 

pCh. 3:5; Ja. l:18;lPc. 1:23. 
gUt. 1:16,20; Lu. 1:81,85; &2:7; 1 Ti. 



13. The new birth, by virtue of which 
those who receive him in faith become 
the sons of God, is here declared to be 
apart from and above all human con- 
ditions, alliances, or descents. Hence 
the Jew even, the natural descendant 
of Abraham, could have no claim or 
title to this heavenly adoption, only as 
he was born of the Spirit of God. The 
tense in were horn, does not limit this 
annunciation to those who received 
Christ while he was on earth, but in- 
cludes all who in every age should be- 
lieve on his name. Not of blood, i. e. 
not by virtue of natural descent, as for 
example, because they were descend- 
ants of Abraham. The original has 
the plural bloods, but this should fur- 
nish no difficulty to any one, as literal 
blood is most manifestly out of the 
question, the reference being to an- 
cestral descent or lineage, which is put 
in the plural to conform to the plural 
them, in the preceding verse. Webster 
and Wilkinson refer the plural bloods, 
to the Hebrew idiom, and cite Ezek. 
16 : 6, 9, but the cases are hardly 
parallel, and the explanation I have 
given seems the most natural and per- 
tinent. Will of the flesh, i. e. carnal 
desire or natural generation. Will of 
man in the next clause, is thought by 
many critics to refer to human adoption. 
But it is better to regard it as a com- 
pendious expression of the preceding 
terms, blood and flesh being that of 
which man is composed. The sense 
might then be paraphrased : ' not by 
descent from Abraham or any renown- 
ed ancestor ; nor by virtue of any 
earthly parentage ; [in a word] not 
from any human act or volition what- 
ever.' There is another interpretation 
that some may regard preferable, which 
seeks for no essential difference in the 



8 flesh, and dwelt among us, (and 
1 we beheld his glory, the glory 
as of the only begotten of the Fa- 
ther,) u full of grace and truth. 

r Ro. 1: 3; Ga. 4: 4, s He. 2: 11, 14,16, 17. 

t Is. 40:5; Mt. 17: 2; ch. 2:11; &11:40; 2 

Po. 1 : 17. u Col. 1 : 19 ; & 2 : 3, 9. 



last two clauses, but regards them as 
an emphatic euphemism for the natu- 
ral mode of descent by procreation, as 
opposed to the spiritual birth of those 
who are adopted into the family of 
God. Such is the explanation given 
to the passage by Bloo infield and oth- 
ers. A third method of explication is 
worthy of mention, which takes the first 
clause as referring to filiation by lawful 
marriage; the second, to filiation by 
concubinage ; the third, to sonship by 
adoption. This would embrace all 
the phases of human descent. But 
such a division and arrangement is too 
minute and far-fetched to command our 
assent. The verse has ever been re- 
garded as very difficult of interpretation 
from the nature of the terms employed, 
and I cannot flatter myself that I have 
been able to throw much light upon it. 
The explanation which I have given, 
seems to be the least embarrassed with 
difficulties. 

14. In the process of his argument 
in regard to the divinity and office of 
Jesus Christ, the Evangelist has now 
reached that point in which he reveals 
the great and stupendous truth of the 
Incarnation of the Eternal Word. This 
great text is parallel and co-ordinate 
with v. 1, in which the supreme divinity 
of the Word is declared. Here his 
complete and perfect manhood is re- 
vealed, a truth as sublime and mysteri- 
ous as that relating to his divinity, and 
one of equal importance in the great 
scheme of human redemption. To 
deny in the face of this text that Jesus 
Christ had a human soul, is as great 
a heresy and as fatal to all correct no- 
tions of the object of his mission to this 
world, as the denial of his supreme di- 
vinity. Indeed the one involves that 
of the other. See N. on 5 : 27. The 



CHAPTER I. 



11 



incarnation of the Word had been in- 
timated in v. 10, but is here reaffirmed 
in the most plain and express terms. 
There his advent into the world was 
simply declared ; here we are told that 
he took upon himself a human body, 
and dwelt among men, and was seen of 
those among whom he dwelt, and espe- 
cially by the apostles who were privi- 
leged on the mount of Transfiguration 
to behold his glory. TJie Word is re- 
sumptive of the title given to this divine 
Personage in v. 1. There his supreme, 
personal, underived divinity was ex- 
pressly affirmed. Here the incarnation 
of this Word is declared in no less plain 
and simple terms. This verse might 
well have followed v. 1, but the writer 
in ascribing creative power to him in 
v. 3, diverges a little from the direct 
train of thought, and descants upon his 
life-giving and enlightening power. The 
verb was made, would be more appro- 
priately rendered became, inasmuch as 
a change or transition from one state 
to another is all that is intended to be 
designated. It is a different verb from 
that employed in v. 1, which was sim- 
ply the verb of existence, was. The 
word flesh, is figuratively used here for 
man, and denotes Christ's human body 
and nature in contradistinction from the 
divine Logos, of whom the incarnation 
is affirmed ; but no one can be so absurd 
as to suppose that the Eternal Word 
became essentially changed into a man. 
The true idea of the incarnation is ex- 
pressed in Col. 2 : 9, "In him dwelleth 
the fulness of the Godhead bodily." 
There was such a union of divinity with 
humanity, that the Incarnate Word 
was verily God and verily man, having 
two distinct and complete natures in- 
effably united in one person. This 
sublime truth could not be expressed 
in more explicit terms, than it is in 
this verse taken in connection with v. 
1, which declares the supreme divinity 
of the Logos here affirmed to have 
become incarnate and to have dwelt 
among men. John seems to have 
had reference in this declaration 
to the Docetae, who maintained that 
the connection of the Logos with the 
human body, was not a reality but only 



an appearance. This error he opposes 
not only here, but in his first epistle 
(1 : 1, 2 ; 4 : 2, 3), by a simple and un- 
equivocal declaration, that the Word 
actually became flesh — one of the 
strongest terms which could be em- 
ployed for a real corporeal existence 
— and dwelt on earth, and was seen by 
him and his fellow-apostles. The verb 
dwelt, is literally sojourned, tabernacled, 
and is beautifully illustrative of the fact 
that heaven was his peculiar and per- 
manent dwelling-place, and that this 
world was only his temporary abode 
for the particular purpose of his mission. 
This clause furnishes additional proof 
that the incarnation of theWord was real, 
and that Jesus Christ in a true and 
veritable body lived on earth. The 
word us, is not. to be restricted to the 
apostles and followers of Christ, but to 
all mankind generically referred to in 
the wovd flesh. 

And we beheld, &c. This is intro- 
duced to show that Jesus Christ the 
Incarnate Word, was more than a mere 
man, and is logically connected with the 
preceding context,as confirmatory proof 
of his higher divine nature. In the 
words we beheld, the nature of the af- 
firmation limits the pronoun to the 
apostles and disciples who were in the 
company of Jesus. The verb rendered 
beheld, signifies to see with the eye, to 
distinctly see, in opposition to discern- 
ing a thing mentally, or forming its 
image in the imagination. The verb 
has much the same emphatic positive- 
ness, as our common form of expression, 
/ saw him with my own eyes, to denote 
personal knowledge obtained by one's 
own sight. His glory. The writer ad- 
duces his testimony as an eye-witness 
of his miracles, teachings, and especial- 
ly of his glory on the mount of Trans- 
figuration. The glory as of the only 
begotten of the Father, is introduced to 
show the excess of glory which invest- 
ed Jesus Christ, who was declared to be 
the Incarnate Word. The words the 
glory as, is equivalent to the very glory, 
and looks back to the equality of the 
Divine Word with the Supreme God 
which was declared in v. 1. The only 
'en of the Father is explained by 



12 



JOHN. 



15 1" w John bare witness of 
him, and cried, saying, This was 
he of whom I spake, x He that 

w Yer. 32 ; ch. 3 : 82 ; & 5 : 33. 

such passages as Luke 1 : 15 ; Ps. 2:7; 
Heb. 1:5; Acts 13 : 33. See K on 
Matt. 28 :_19. Full of grace, &c. The 
parenthesis, found in our common ver- 
sion, would refer this clause to theWord 
in the first member of the sentence. 
But it is better to remove the sign of 
the parenthesis, and refer the words 
full of grace, to the pronoun his, the 
concord in the original being founded 
on the implied sense, rather than on 
strict grammatical agreement. The 
general sense remains the same, but 
the awkwardness of the sentence, as 
it stands in our version, with a long 
parenthesis between the noun and its 
adjective', is thereby removed. Grace 
and truth are generally interpreted as 
equivalent to gracious truth, but I like 
Alford's suggestion, that these two 
words set out the two sides of the 
divine manifestation in Christ ; grace, 
as the result of love to mankind ; truth, 
as the unity, purity, and light of His 
own character. Webster and Wilkinson 
take them in the sense of grace, or di- 
vine favour in pardon and salvation, and 
truth, in the full and perfect revelation 
of God as explained in v. 18. 

15-18. John the Baptist is now 
again brought forward as furnishing 
concurrent testimony with the writer 
of the gospel, as to the character of Je- 
sus Christ. This reference to John's 
testimony is therefore closely allied in 
thought to the preceding verse. There 
it was said that the Word, declared in 
v. 1 to have been in the beginning with 
God, and to be God, became flesh and 
was seen by them among whom he 
dwelt on earth. Here John the Bap- 
tist is represented, as declaiming in the 
most express and positive terms the 
pre-existent nature of Jesus Christ. The 
Evangelist then resumes in vs. 16-18 
his own testimony to the exalted grace 
and dignity of Christ, expanding and 
confirming the sentiment of v. 14. 



cometh after me, is preferred be- 
fore me ; v for he was before me. 

ccMt. 3: 11; Ma. 1 : 7; Lu. 3: 16; ver. 27, 30: 

ch. 3 : 31. 

y Ch. 8: 58; Col. 1:17. 



Thus these verses carry forward in an 
unbroken chain of thought, the argu- 
ment of the dignity and condescending 
grace of Jesus Christ, as evinced on the 
one hand, by his supreme divinity, and 
on the other, by his becoming flesh 
and dwelling on earth among the sons 
of men. 

15. Bare witness ; literally bears wit- 
ness, the present tense being often used 
for the preterite, when the thing spo- 
ken is well authenticated and of general 
notoriety. Cried, i. e. publicly pro- 
claimed. Of whom I spake. Refer- 
ence is had to words spoken by John, 
before he saw Jesus approaching him 
to be baptized. See Matt. 3:11; Mark 
1:7; Luke 3: 16. Now as he draws 
near to receive baptism (Matt. 3:13; 
Mark 1 : 9), John points Mm out as the 
one of whom he had previously borne 
such high testimony. He that cometh 
after me, &c. These are the words of 
John's previous testimony. Cometh af- 
ter me, i. e. whose official appearance 
was subsequent to that of John. Is 
preferred (literally has become) before me, 
i. e. has been advanced to be my su- 
perior in point of dignity. For he was 
before me refers to the pre-existent na- 
ture of Christ, and furnishes the reason 
why Jesus, although younger than 
John, was yet his superior. The verb 
in the original refers to a fixed and per- 
manent state of existence, and not to 
one upon wdiich Christ entered, which 
is expressed by a different verb in the 
preceding clause. The employment of 
the two verbs, to be and to become, in 
their distinctive significations, is w r ell 
observed in these verses, the one being 
used of our Lord's pre-existent and un- 
changing state as supreme Logos ; the 
other, of his becoming incarnate and 
dwelling among men. Before me is lite- 
rally first of me, the superlative being 
used for the comparative, when it is in- 
tended to express a very high degree of 



CHAPTER I. 



13 



16 And of his z fulness have 
all we received, and grace for 
grace. 

sCh.3:34;Ep. 1: C, 7, S; Col. 1:19; &2:9, 
10. 



superiority arising from a comparison. 
Sec N. on 15 : 18. 

16. Here the Evangelist resumes the 
subject in his own "words. It is very 
unnatural to take these words as those 
of John the Baptist, who was only cited 
in regard to what he had said of the 
superiority and pre-existence of Jesus, 
previous to his coming to him to be 
baptized. Of his fulness, i. e. the ful- 
ness of his divine perfections, or of his 
being and essence. Reference is proba- 
bly had to the words full of grace and 
truth, in v. 14. From that fulness of 
grace and truth residing in Him, as the 
fountain of all good, believers are sup- 
plied in increasing measure with all the 
gifts and graces, which assimilate them 
to Jesus Christ as the children of his 
love. Have we all received. The use 
of the plural shows that these are not 
the words of John the Baptist as some 
suppose. We all refers to believers in 
the world when John wrote his gospel, 
and by implication to all in every age 
of the church, who are the true follow- 
ers of Christ. And (i. e. even or in 
particular) grace for grace, i. e. grace 
upon grace ; continual accessions of 
grace, or abundance of grace. So Wi- 
ner explains the preposition here ren- 
dered for : " Grace over against, in 
equal measure with grace ; a subsequent 
portion of grace in the place of that 
which preceded — and thus grace, un- 
interruptedly, unceasingly renewed." 
Webster and Wilkinson translate, 
" Grace in the room of grace, a greater 
for less, higher for lower, as when a 
man attains successive degrees of rank." 
There is no essential difference between 
these two interpretations. Some erro- 
neously refer this to the two dispensa- 
tions, Mosaic and Christian, both of 
which were founded on grace, but the 
latter in this respect being far in ad- 
vance of the former. This, however, 
is far-fetched and unsuited to the gene- 



17 For a the law was given by 
Moses, but l grace and c truth came 
by Jesus Christ. 

a Ex. 20 : 1, &c. ; De. 4 : 44 ; & 5 : 1 ; & 33 : 4. 
& Bo. 3: 24; & 5; 21; & 6: 14. 

c Ch. 8 : 32 ; & 14 : 6. 

ral train of thought. There is no com- 
parison, either expressed or implied, 
between the Mosaic and Christian dis- 
pensations in this verse, that being in- 
troduced in the next verse. The sim- 
ple idea is the inexhaustible fulness of 
grace and truth which dwells in Jesus 
Christ, and the lavish bestowal of these 
blessings upon all true believers. Be- 
sides this general objection to such an 
interpretation, a special argument may 
be advanced in the persons referred to 
by we, many of whom had been hea- 
thens, and never therefore in any sense 
had been under the Mosaic dispensa- 
tion, and received or enjoyed its gra- 
cious provisions. Nor is that dispensa- 
tion spoken of as one of grace, but in 
the New Testament, especially in the 
Pauline Epistles, is contrasted with the 
gospel, as a dispensation of law bring- 
ing condemnation and death. See 
Heb. 10:1; Acts 13:9; Rom. 3:20, 
2S; 4:15; 5:13; 1 : 5, 6 ; Gal. 2:16, 
21. This contrast between the stern 
and inexorable demand of the law and 
the merciful provisions of the gospel, is 
distinctly brought out in v. 17, where 
grace and truth are said to have come 
by Jesus Christ, while all that came 
from Moses was simply the law. Verse 
17 is most manifestly therefore a proof 
or illustration of what is asserted in v. 
16, and shows that no reference what- 
ever in the words grace for grace, is 
made to the law. 

17. This verse, as has just been re- 
marked, serves to confirm and illustrate 
the previous assertion, that the source 
of all grace and truth is in Jesus Christ. 
Moses, who was made the chief medium 
between God and man in the old dis- 
pensation, and therefore the most emi- 
nent of all the ancient saints and proph- 
ets, was simply a lawgiver, and could 
hold out no proffer of peace and par- 
don to those who were guilty of the 
violation of God's holy law. But it was 



14 



JOHN. 



18 d No man hath seen God at 
any time ; e the only begotten Son, 

<ZEx. 83: 20; De.4:12; Mt.ll:27; Ln.ll: 
22 ; ch. 6 : 46 ; 1 Ti. 1 : IT; & 6: 16 ; 1 Jo. 4: 

12, 20. 



the province of Jesus Christ to intro- 
duce a dispensation of love and grace, 
and to extend the most free and un- 
limited forgiveness to all who believe in 
him as the Son of God and Saviour of 
men. The preposition by, in the first 
clause refers to agency or instrumen- 
tality ; in the second, to Christ as the 
efficient cause. Grace and truth came 
from Jesus as from its original source, 
inasmuch as in Him dwelt the Divine 
fulness ; but the law was promulgated 
through the agency of Moses. This is 
referred to by was given, which also 
represents that which has bounds and 
limitations ; whereas, grace and truth 
came in unlimited degree, because pro- 
ceeding from the fulness of Jesus 
Christ. As Moses acted under the 
Divine guidance and direction when he 
gave the law, the superiority which is 
here claimed for that which came by 
Jesus Christ, can only be justified by 
the truth of what is asserted in v. 14, 
that he was the Incarnate Word, and 
therefore in his nature and being in- 
finitely superior to Moses, who was a 
mere subordinate agent in the promul- 
gation of the law. The relative supe- 
riority of Christ is here proved and 
illustrated, by the transcendent excel- 
lence of the gifts of grace, which were 
conferred upon men in and through 
him. Thus the argument of his high 
dignity and mission is twofold, from 
his divine pre-existent nature, and the 
rich and heavenly blessings conferred 
through his Incarnation upon men. 
Thus this verse is closely connected 
with the great proposition which this 
Preface of John's Gospel is designed to 
prove and illustrate, that the Eternal 
Word, who was the Supreme God, be- 
came incarnate ; and that Jesus Christ 
is the Being in whom resides this 
fulness of divine grace and love, of 
which all those who believe in Him 
are partakers. 

18. The same general thought is 



which is in the bosom of the Fa- 
ther, he hath declared him. 

e Ver. 14 ; ch. 3 : 16, 18 ; 1 Jo. 4 : 9. 

continued in this verse. Moses could 
only declare the will of God, as it was 
made known to him ; but the only 
begotten Son, in his eternal and inef- 
fable union with the Father, has in 
himself all the knowledge requisite for a 
full and complete manifestation of Him. 
No man, not even Moses. Hath seen 
God, i. e. has seen the Deity as such 
in his essential and incommunicable 
glory. Moses saw the glory of God as 
it was objectively revealed to his vision, 
but he had not that intuition and per- 
fect knowledge of the divine essence 
and perfections, declared here to be 
possessed only by the Son. It seems 
fit here to remark, that the theophany or 
divine appearance in the Old Testament, 
was most undoubtedly that of the 
Eternal Word, the Jehovah-Angel or 
Angel of the Lord. See Isa. 6 : 1-4 
compared with John 12 : 41. This makes 
the declaration literally true, that no 
man hath seen God (i. e. the Father, 
or God as such) at any time. Jesus 
Christ was the only manifestation of 
God, the Deity being in Him so veiled or 
adumbrated, that human eyes could be- 
hold the manifested glory, which would 
otherwise be unendurable to mortal 
vision. How far the same may be true 
of the angelic intelligences who were 
created by Jesus Christ (Eph. 3:9; 
Col. 1 : 16), we have no means of 
knowing ; but that it is so, at least to 
some extent, seems quite probable from 
Isa. 6 : 2, where the seraphim are repre- 
sented as covering their faces before 
Jehovah, as though unable to endure 
the excessive glory of His presence, 
which glory is declared by John (12 : 
41), to have been the glory of Jesus 
himself. It is probable that Jesus 
Christ is the Revealer of God, not only 
to this world, but to all the intelligent 
universe called into being by his crea- 
tive word. See Eph. 3: 10. 

In the bosom of the Father, indicates 
the intimate communion and love sub- 



CHAPTER I. 



15 



19 % And this is f the record 



of John, 



when the 

/Ch. 5:33. 



Jews sent 



sisting between the Father and Son, 
and is a varied repetition of the expres- 
sion the Word was with God, in v. 1. 
Olshausen advances this as a proof-text, 
that the expression only begotten Son, 
cannot refer to the incarnation of the 
Word (see my Note on Matt. 28:19), 
but must be taken of the eternal exist- 
ence of the Son with the Father. But 
the words in the bosom of the Father, 
are not based on the idea of a child held 
in the paternal arms, but on that of affec- 
tionate embrace, or the drawing of a 
friend to the bosom with encircling 
arms, whence is derived the term bosom 
friend, expressive of the strongest 
friendship and attachment. See Robin- 
son's Lexicon, Art. Kolpos. This idea 
is indicated also by the preposition, 
which is not in but into, and conforms 
to the use of the preposition in the 
second clause of v. 1, on which see 
Note. The same idea of independent 
personality is taught in both passages, 
except that the word bosom, brings out 
more fully the love union between the 
Father and Son, than is done in v. 1, 
where the essential and supreme divinity 
of the Logos is the thing specifically 
taught. Winer refers the preposition 
to one who has been placed upon the 
bosom and continuing there. Webster 
and Wilkinson derive the figure from 
the ancient custom of reclining at 
meals, the place of honor and affection 
being in the bosom or in front of the 
chief person who reclined at the table. 
(See 13 : 23, 25.) But this strikes me 
as less natural, than to found the ex- 
pression on the idea of embracing a 
friend with the arms encircling him, 
and thus straining him to the bosom. 
The idea of such a repose in the bosom, 
as an infant enjoys when cherished in 
its mother's arms, is too gross to entitle 
it to a moment's consideration. It is 
sufficient for us to know, that the pas- 
sage teaches the essential and insepa- 
rable union of the Father and Son, and 
we do well to dismiss from our mind all 



priests and Levites from Jerusa- 
lem, to ask him, Who art thou ? 



analogies and explanations of the mode 
of this ineffable union, drawn from the 
forms and expressions of human love, 
since all such devices of reason to 
understand or illustrate the relation to 
one another of the divine Persons of the 
Godhead, must ever be fruitless, if they 
do not tend to erroneous conceptions 
of God. 

Hat! i declared him. The pronoun 
him, is rightly supplied by our trans- 
lators. But reference is had not so 
much to the attributes of God in gene- 
ral, for these had been revealed in the 
Old Testament, as to the benignity and 
condescending love of the Father in 
sending his Son Jesus Christ into the 
world (see 3:16; 1 John 3 : 1), to be- 
stow the blessings of grace and salva- 
tion upon men. This does not pre- 
clude the idea, that to the Son, as the 
Revealer, we are indebted for all the 
inspired records of God's being and at- 
tributes found in the Old Testament 
Scriptures. But the special idea here 
is that the more peculiar and glorious 
manifestations of God's love and mer- 
cy, were made through Jesus Christ, in 
his own personal advent and ministry 
on earth. This verse connects the love 
of Jesus Christ with that which is 
felt also by the Father, and manifested 
by Him in the gift of His dear Son. 

Professor Stuart thinks that the reve- 
lation of God by Christ, which is here 
referred to, was that of the doctrine of 
the Trinity, for which we are indebted 
to the overwhelming light of the New 
Testament, which, shining back upon 
the Old Testament, displays the founda- 
tion there laid for it, although not in 
distinct terms revealed. While this is 
true, I am yet inclined to think that 
the revelation here spoken of, must be 
the one above referred to, since it ac- 
cords so well with the context, in which 
grace and truth are declared to come 
by Jesus Christ; and since the union 
between Him and the Father is such 
that all the provisions of redeeming 



16 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



20 And g he confessed, and de- 
er Lu. 3 : 15 ; ch. 3 : 23 ; Ac. 13 : 25. 

love, are in accordance "with the Fa- 
ther's will and pleasure. 

19-34. Testimony op John the Bap- 
tist to Jesus. Bethabara. Vs. 19-28 
contain the testimony which John bore 
to the deputation from the Sanhedrim, 
sent to inquire whether he was the 
Christ ; vs. 29-34 refer to the testimony 
borne by John to his own disciples re- 
specting Jesus. The design of these 
verses is to substantiate and illustrate 
by the testimony of John, the truth of 
the declaration respecting the dignity 
and pre-existent nature of Jesus, which 
the writer had made in the forego- 
ing Preface to his gospel. 

19. The Evangelist now introduces 
in full the testimony of John, to which 
reference was made in v. 15. The pro- 
noun this, refers forward to the testi- 
mony which he bore to the compara- 
tive dignity of Jesus and himself, re- 
corded in the following verses. Re- 
cord has here the sense of testimony. 
The clause when the Jews sent, &c. is to 
be constructed with this is the record 
of John, and not with the following 
clause commencing with and he confess- 
ed. The punctuation in our common 
version is correct. This deputation 
seems to have been sent about the time 
when Jesus made his public appearance 
(see v. 29). John had been engaged in 
his public ministry about six months, and 
the great numbers who flocked to him 
from all parts of the country, and even 
from Jerusalem (see Matt. 3 : 5), excit- 
ed the attention of the Sanhedrim, so 
that they deemed it proper to send mes- 
sengers to make the inquiry here speci- 
fied. The Jeivs. In John's gospel this 
expression refers generally to the Jew- 
ish Sanhedrim, or those persons who 
belonged to the interest of the chief 
rulers, and were their advisers and 
abettoi's in the persecution of Jesus. The 
particularity of this reference would 
seem to imply, that when John's gos- 
pel was written, the Jewish nation, po- 
litically considered, had ceased to be. 
The words from Jerusalem, are to be 
constructed with the verb sent. Web- 



nied not ; but confessed, I am not 
the Christ. 

ster and Wilkinson construct them 
with the Jews, in the sense of the Jews 
of Jerusalem. The deputation was one 
of weight and dignity, being composed 
of priests and Levites. This shows that 
they regarded John's ministry, and its 
remarkable effect upon the nation at 
large, as seen in the great numbers who 
came to his baptism, to be an affair of 
very grave importance, and demanding 
that the delegation sent to inquire into 
the matter, should be composed of some 
of their wisest and ablest men. The 
union of the two classes, priests and 
Levites, is frequently found, especially 
in the Old Testament. See Deut. 17:9; 
24 : 8 ; Josh. 3 : 3 ; 1 Kings 8:4; 2 
Chron. 23 : 4, from which passages, 
without extending the quotations, we 
see that these two classes were em- 
ployed about the temple service (see 
IS T . on Luke 10: 31, 32), and would be 
the persons to whom the message of 
the Sanhedrim might be properly in- 
trusted. Wlio art thou? i. c. what 
personage do you claim to be ? The 
spirit and terms of this message were 
highly unbecoming. Instead of ascer- 
taining the nature of John's mission 
from his public ministry, and compar- 
ing his doctrines with the word of 
God, as it was their duty as religious 
teachers and guides of the people to 
have done, they rudely demand of him 
an open and distinct avowal of his 
character and position as a public 
teacher. Thus afterwards they ignor- 
ed the abundant evidence, which our 
Lord gave of his Messiahship in his 
stupendous miracles and pure and heav- 
enly instructions, and clamored for an 
explicit and open avowal of his high 
character and mission as the Christ (see 
10 : 24 ; Luke 22 : 6*7), or at least a sign 
from heaven, to place the truth of his 
claims beyond doubt. 

20. The twofold repetition of the 
verb confessed (i. e. held the same lan- 
guage, did not vary in his assertion), 
and the negative form in which the 
same idea is expressed, impart the high- 
est emphasis to John's denial. He 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER I. 



17 



21 And they asked him, What 
then ? Art thou h Elias ? And 
he saith, I am not. Art thou ' 
that Prophet ? And he answered, 

No. 

A Mai. 4: 5; Mt. 17:10. 

Avould not permit the deputation to 
think for a moment, that he presumed 
to arrogate to himself the high office of 
Messiah. He denied in the most positive 
terms that he was the Christ. It is 
worthy of remark, that John was care- 
ful to remove every impression that he 
claimed for himself the office of the 
Messiah, before he answered the ques- 
tion of the deputation as to who he 
was, or what was the nature of his office. 
21. What then? i.e. What is to be 
gathered from this denial ? What are 
Ave to think of you? Art thou Elias? 
John had denied in the most positive 
terms his title to the Messiahship. In- 
stead of repeating therefore their in- 
terrogation in the general form in 
which it was first proposed, they give 
it a more definite shape, and inquire 
whether he claims to be Elias. The 
Jews thought that the Messiah would 
come attended by Elijah, as his most 
honored and confidential friend and 
follower. The general appearance and 
habits of John, so much like those of 
Elijah (see 2 Kings 1 : 8), together with 
the burden of his proclamation (see 
Matt. 3 : 2, compared with Mai. 4 : 5), 
suggested the idea that he might be 
the reappearance of that Old Testament 
prophet. On John's prompt and posi- 
tive denial that he was Elijah, they 
proceed to inquire whether he was that 
prophet whom, from Deut. 18 : 15, 18, 
the Jews were expecting as the precur- 
sor or attendant of the Messiah. Some 
commentators suppose that Jeremiah is 
here meant (see Matt. 16 : 14), but it 
seems rather improbable that this well- 
known prophet should be referred to in 
such indefinite terms, when Elias had 
just been named. I should rather re- 
gard it as put generically for any proph- 
et, who might be supposed to reap- 
pear in the time of the Messiah, to 
grace his advent and prepare the way 



22 Then said they unto him, 
Who art thou ? that we may give 
an answer to them that sent us. 
What sayest thou of thyself ? 



iDe. IS: 15,16. 



for his elevation to the Messianic 
throne. When John denied himself to 
be this prophet, the deputation pro- 
posed their question in its original 
form, with the exception of the omis- 
sion of the pronoun, which changed the 
emphasis frdm who art thou ? to who 
art thou ? (literally who art ?) The first 
question was designed to draw from 
John an open and distinct avowal as to 
who he was, and what were his creden- 
tials for assuming the office of a reli- 
gious instructor and reformer. Upon 
his denial that he was the Christ, or 
any one of the distinguished prophets 
whom they named, in a sort of impa- 
tient manner, they put their inquiry in 
terms which they think he cannot evade, 
who are you then? All this is implied 
in the omission of the pronoun. That 
tee may give, &c. This clause depends 
upon an omitted clause, such as tell us, 
or answer tcs, which the construction 
would readily suggest. It is append- 
ed as a sort of apology for thus press- 
ing John to give them a definite an- 
swer. They are acting under orders, 
and it is made imperative upon 
them to convey to their superiors who 
sent them, a reply to the question here 
proposed. What sayest thou of thyself? 
You have denied that you are the Mes- 
siah, or any of these Old Testament 
worthies, whom the nation expect as 
the forerunners or attendants of the 
Messiah. Tell us then who you are, 
and what is your office and mission. 
The varied form and directness of the 
question, show the persistent determi- 
nation of these men to obtain an ex- 
plicit answer to their inquiry, before 
they returned to Jerusalem. 

In regard to John's denial that he 
was Elias, it may be remarked that he 
was not Elias in his actual personal 
appearance, as the question implied; 
and it seems very clear also that John 



18 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



23 * He said, I am the voice of 
one crying in the wilderness, Make 
straight the way of the Lord, as l 
said the prophet Esaias. 

24 And they which were sent 
were of the Pharisees. 

&Mt. 3: 3; Ma. 1: 3; Lu. 3: 4; ch. 3: 28. 

himself was ignorant, that in him was 
fulfilled that prophecy, which spoke of 
the appearance of Elijah as the fore- 
runner of Christ (Mai. 4:5). Our Lord 
himself revealed this fact. See Matt. 11 : 
14; Mark 9: 12, 13. 

23. I am the voice; literally I the 
voice, &c. The ellipsis of the verb so 
readily permitted by the Greek lan- 
guage, gives great vivacity to the sen- 
tence. It is worthy of notice that John 
does not tell them in direct terms who 
he is, but simply his office work. In 
him was the fulfilment of the prediction 
in Isa. 40 : 3. His office was to proclaim 
the advent of the Messiah, and prepare 
the way for his approach. John the 
Baptist here claims for himself what 
the Evangelists (Matt. 3:3; Mark 1 : 
2, 3 ; Luke 3 : 4) say of him, as the 
person referred to in Isa. 40 : 3. 

24. It is not clear for what purpose 
this parenthetical verse is introduced. 
The most probable conjecture is that 
which refers it to the following question, 
as a reason why it was proposed. The 
Pharisees were great sticklers for the 
observance of all the rites pertaining 
to ceremonial washings and ablutions. 
They were quick to detect any infringe- 
ment of the rules and usages pertaining 
to this branch of the Mosaic ritual. 
The Pharisees of that age believed that 
in the Messianic reign, none would 
baptize but the Messiah himself and 
some of the attending prophets, such 
as Elijah, Jeremiah, and others who 
were to reappear upon the earth. 
Hence the annunciation that the mem- 
bers of this deputation were Pharisees, 
will naturally account for the following 
question which they proposed to John, 
the design and nature of which I shall 
refer to in the note below. Alford and 
some others would reject the article in 
the original, according to the various 



25 And they asked him, and 
said unto him, Why baptizest 
thou then, if thou he not that 
Christ, nor Elias, neither that 
Prophet ? 



Zls. 40: 



reading, and translate, " and they (i. e. 
the whole deputation) were (or had beeti) 
sent by the Pharisees.'''' But this is little 
more than a flat repetition of v. 19, and 
makes the parenthesis harsh and use- 
less. 

25. Why baptizest thou then, &c. The 
nature and purport of this inquiry will 
readily appear from the Pharisaic notion 
of baptism, in the times of the Messiah 
referred to in the preceding Note. If 
John was neither the Messiah nor one 
of his attending prophets, they as 
Pharisees questioned his right to ad- 
minister baptism. Prof. Stuart remarks 
that the Jews anticipated a general 
baptism or purification in the time of 
the Messiah. If so, it would be admis- 
sible to base the question of the depu- 
tation, on the idea that John was en- 
gaged in a needless and untimely work, 
in administering so extensively the rite 
of baptism, when the Messiah had not 
yet appeared. It is very clear that the 
question arises either from their denial 
of his right to baptize, or the incon- 
gruity, if not uselessness of the rite, 
when the Messiah had not yet come. 
That Christ; literally, the Christ, the 
promised Messiah. Tliat prophet ; liter- 
ally the prophet, i. e. the one, whoever 
he might be, who was to reappear in 
the time of the Messiah's advent. See 
v. 33. 

26. The connection of this verse 
with the preceding context is somewhat 
obscm-e. Olshausen seems, however, 
to have hit upon the train of argument. 
By announcing unto the deputation 
that the Messiah had already come and 
was then walking among them, John 
showed himself to be the true prophet 
of God. He vindicated in this way his 
right to baptize, which had been virtu- 
ally called in question by the deputa- 
tion. It was in reference to this testi- 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER I. 



19 



26 John answered them, say- 
ing, m I baptize with water : " but 
there stancleth one among you, 
whom ye know not ; 

27 a He it is, who coming after 
me is preferred before me, whose 
shoe's latchet I am not worthy to 
unloose. 

28 These things were done in 

m Mt. 8 : 11. n Mai. 3 : 1. 

oVer. 15, 30; Ac. 19:4. 
p Ju. 7 : 24 ; cli. 10 : 40. 



mony of John, that the Pharisees 
hesitated to admit his claim as a true 
prophet (Matt. 21 : 25), lest our Lord 
should ask them why they did not then 
believe in his testimony respecting Jesus. 
/ baptize, &c. The presence of the pro- 
noun m the original, establishes a strong 
contrast between John's baptism with 
water, and the baptism of the Spirit 
which was the prerogative of the Mes- 
siah (see Matt. 3: 11). The superiority 
of our Lord's baptism is expressly 
affirmed in v. 33. There standeth one 
among you ; literally, in the midst of you 
standeth (one) tohom ye know not. The 
omission of the antecedent imparts a 
becoming mystery to the announce- 
ment. Ye know not in his character as 
Messiah. The profound ignorance of 
the members of the deputation and all 
the people, of the exalted Personage 
who stood among them, was a remark- 
able illustration of what is recorded in 
v. 10. 

27. This verse is declarative of the 
Messiahship of Jesus, the clause, he it 
is, who coming after me is preferred be- 
fore me, being equivalent to, he it is, 
who is the Messiah. The circumlocu- 
tory form in which this fact was an- 
nounced, suits well the time and occa- 
sion of its utterance. Coming after me. 
This participial clause is concessive, and 
requires the translation, although com- 
ing after me (in point of time). Is pre- 
ferred before me. See N. on v. 15. It 
is to this public testimony of John the 
Baptist to the Messiahship of Jesus, 
that reference is made in v. 15. Whose 
shoe's latchet, &c. See N. on Matt. 3 : 
11 j Markl: 7. 



p Bethabara beyond Jordan, where 
John was baptizing. 

29 "II The next day John seeth 
Jesus coming unto him, and 
saith, Behold q the Lamb of God, 
'" which taketh away the sin of the 
world ! 

?Ex. 12: 3; Is. 53:7; ver. 3G; Ac. S: 32; 1 

Pe. 1: 19; Ee. 5: 6, &c. 

r Is. 53: 11; 1 Co. 15 : 3; Ga. 1: 4; He. 1 : 3; & 

2:17; &9:2S; 1 Pe. 2: 24; & 3: IS; 1 Jo. 

2: 2; &3: G;&4:10; Ee. 1:5. 

28. The testimony was so full and 
explicit, that the Evangelist deemed it 
worthy to mention the name of the 
place where John was then baptizing. 
Bethabara, the house or place of the 
ford, perhaps the same as Bethbarah 
(Jud. 1 : 24). Some of the best MSS. 
and later editions read Bethany. Such 
also is the reading of the Syriac version. 
If this is the true reading, we see the 
use of the adjunct, beyond Jordan, to 
distinguish it from Bethany near Jeru- 
salem, where dwelt Lazarus and his 
sisters Martha and Mary. There is no 
objection to referring Bethabara to its 
more ancient, and Bethany, to its more 
modern name. 

29. A question of some importance 
here arises as to the point of time in 
this narrative, in which our Lord's 
temptation is to be placed. There is, 
as Alford remarks, such an unbroken 
sequence in the events here detailed, 
that so long a time as forty days can- 
not well be interposed between any 
of them. In 2 : 1, the expression third 
day (i. e. the third from the calling 
of Nathanael, 1 : 45-51), connects the 
marriage in Cana of Galilee closely with 
the events just before related. I can 
see, therefore, no place for the tempta- 
tion subsequent to the arrival of the 
deputation from Jerusalem (v. 19), and 
must believe that Jesus returned to 
Bethabara from the scene of the temp- 
tation previous to that time. The tes- 
timony borne by John to the character 
of Jesus, took place after his baptism, 
which will reconcile the apparent dis- 
crepancy between this passage and v. 
33 (on which see Note). At the same 



20 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



time, it must be admitted that the tes- 
timony in Luke 3:16, was before his 
baptism, but there it was predictive, and 
did not as here point to Jesus as one 
who was actually present. 

The next day after the interview with 
the deputation from Jerusalem. Coming 
unto him. Many interpret this of the 
coming of our Lord to Bethabara after 
the Temptation. But the inference is 
clear from what is said in v. 26, that he 
was in Bethabara the previous day. 
The expression coming unto him, is 
rather to be referred to a return of our 
Lord to John from his lodging place (see 
vs. 29, 38, 39). Lamb of God. As the 
lamb was sacrificed upon the altar, as 
a symbolical atonement for the sins of 
the people, this epithet is applied figur- 
atively to our Lord Jesus, to denote 
the sacrifice which he made for the sins 
of men. That John so intended the 
expression to be understood, is evident 
from the words which follow, which 
taketh away, &c. This shows that Jesus 
was not called a lamb, to denote merely 
that he was an innocent and harmless 
man, or from any analogy existing be- 
tween him and the paschal lamb, which 
was the sign of deliverance from Egyp- 
tian bondage ; nor, as Alford well re- 
marks, was he thus called, with any 
reference to the lamb of the daily 
evening and morning sacrifice, for this 
was only one of the several animals 
which were offered on such occasions, 
and never, with two exceptions (Levit. 
4 : 32 ; Numb. 6 : 14), was offered as a 
sin-offering. Christ "was indeed typified 
in the paschal lamb and in all the sacri- 
ficial ritual, but the Lamb of God is 
here used in a higher and more signifi- 
cant sense, as the Lamb previously re- 
ferred to in the Messianic prophecies. 
Who can doubt that the reference, in 
part at least, is to Isa. 53 : 7, where it 
was predicted that the Messiah was to 
be "brought as a lamb to the slaugh- 
ter ?" This reference to the prophecy 
which disclosed with such fulness of 
detail the sufferings and death of the 
Messiah, is then aptly followed by the 
words, which taketh away the sin of 
the world. It is as though John had 
said, ' there is the Lamb of God, who 



according to that great Messianic pre- 
diction in Esaias, is to be brought to 
the slaughter — to bear our griefs and 
carry our sorrows — to be wounded for 
our transgressions and bruised for our 
iniquities — to bear the chastisement 
of our peace and heal us with his 
stripes — in a word to take away the sin 
of the world? This interpretation by no 
means denies or overlooks the other 
aspects and relations, in which our 
Lord may be called the Lamb of God. 
But the direct reference seems to be 
to the above-mentioned prophecy of 
Isaiah, Avhere the suffering, dying Mes- 
siah is compared to a lamb led to the 
slaughter. 

Which taketh away the sin of the 
toorld, as has been virtually remarked, 
is a condensation of the prophecy 
above referred to. The evidence from 
this passage of the vicarious nature 
of Christ's sufferings and death, is so 
plain that it would seem no one could 
hesitate for a moment to receive it as 
one of the most clearly revealed facts 
in the Word of God. This passage 
alone, if the truth were revealed no- 
where else in the Scriptures, justifies 
the doctrine that our Lord was the 
sinner's substitute, and thus made a 
sin-offering for man. But the careful 
reader of the Bible needs not to be in- 
formed, that this great truth is taught 
in the clearest and most ample terms, 
in many other portions of God's Word. 
The epistle to the Hebrews would have 
no significancy, if this doctrine of a vi- 
carious atonement through Jesus Christ 
were taken away from it, as its great 
and fundamental idea. The same may 
be said of the Epistle to the Romans, 
in which Paul's great argument of 
justification by faith is founded upon 
the fact, that " while we were yet sinners 
Christ died for us." The verb rendered 
taketh away, refers to the removal of 
sin or its penalty, by an atonement or 
expiation. It is the word chosen by 
the LXX. to translate pardon (i. e. put 
away) my sin, in 1 Sam. 15 : 25, and 
to bear the iniquity, in Levit. 10 : 17. 
How could the sin of the world be re- 
moved in any other manner? Could it 
be effected by the death of a merely 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER I. 



21 



30 * This is lie of whom I said, 
After me cometh a man which is 
preferred before me ; for he was 
before me. 

31 And I knew him not : but 



s Ver. 15, 27. 
IMaL8:l: Mt. 3:6; Lu. 1:11 
3,4. 



fC, 77; &3: 



good man? Surely not. Strict and 
perfect obedience is required of every 
created intelligence, and no one there- 
fore, however good he may be, has 
any stock of merit which can be trans- 
ferred to the account of another. But 
a suitable expiation has been made, and 
Jesus Christ, who a little before was 
averred to be the Incarnate Word, who 
in the beginning was with God, and who 
was God, and by whom all things were 
created, is here declared to be the 
Being, through whose blood shed like 
that of the lamb upon the altar, the ex- 
piation has been effected. The world, 
i. e. the world of mankind. See N". on 
v. 10. 

30. Of whom I said, in reply to the 
deputation of the Pharisees (v. 27). 
This is the testimony referred to in 
v. 15. 

31. I knew him not. Some interpret 
this as a denial on the part of John, 
that he had any personal knowledge of 
Jesus. But this is hardly supposable, 
when the relationship and friendly in- 
tercourse of the families of Joseph and 
Zacharias are taken into consideration. 
It is better therefore to refer it to the 
knowledge of our Lord's Messiahship, 
of which John was comparatively ig- 
norant, until divinely enlightened in 
reference thereto, by the revelation 
referred to in v. 33. " Prom Matt. 3 : 
14, it appears that John knew Jesus to 
be the Messiah before he baptized him ; 
so that the declaration here made by 
him, and repeated in v. 33, must be 
understood to imply, that his knowl- 
edge of Christ, which was communicat- 
ed by divine afflatus on the instant be- 
fore he baptized him, was forthwith 
confirmed by the promised sign." 
Trollope. But that he, &c. These 



that he should be made manifest 
to Israel, ' therefore am I come 
baptizing with water. 

32 " And John bare record, say- 
ing, I saw the Spirit descending 
from heaven like a dove, and it 
abode upon him. 

Ma. 1:10; Lu. 3:22; ch. 5:32. 



u Mt. 



16: 



words stand as the reason why John 
came baptizing with water, or in other 
words, preaching the duty of repent- 
ance and reformation, of which bap- 
tism with water was the ratifying seal. 
John's work was therefore a prepara- 
tory one. Although ignorant at that 
time of the Messianic claims of Jesus, 
yet he was made the instrument of pre- 
paring the way for his approach, to the 
end that he might be made manifest to 
Israel. 

32. In this and the following verse, 
we have John's recorded testimony by 
what special sign he was divinely in- 
formed of the Messiahship of Jesus. 
This passage therefore stands connect- 
ed with vs. 29-31, denoting the source 
of John's knowledge that Jesus was 
the Lamb of God that was to take away 
the sin of the world. "From this cur- 
sory allusion to the Baptist's testimony, 
we see that John supposed his readers 
to be acquainted with the earlier Gos- 
pels, or with the facts disclosed in 
them. The same appears from 3 : 24 ; 
11 : 2." Webster and Wilkinson. I 
saw the Spirit, &c. See X. on Matt. 3 : 
16. AVe have no means of knowing 
whether John heard the voice, which 
accompanied the descent of the Spirit 
upon Jesus. But from v. 34 we should 
think it highly probable that he did. 
Tlie same said unto me, &c. There is 
no necessity, either from the language 
here made use of, or from the nature 
of the case, of supposing John to have 
been addressed by an audible voice. 
A revelation from God is as easily and 
clearly made to the internal man, as 
through the medium of the external 
organs of sense. And remaining on 
him. Some have erroneously supposed 
that the Spirit had descended visibly to 



22 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



33 And I knew him not : but 
he that sent me to baptize with 
water, the same said unto me, 
Upon whom thou shalt see the 
Spirit descending, and remaining 
on him, the * same is he which 
baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 

34 And I saw, and bare record 
that this is the Son of God. 



a?Mt. 



l;Ac.l:5;&2:4:&10:44; &19: 6. 



John's eye, upon others who had come 
to his baptism, but did not remain upon 
them as upon Jesus. But it was the 
Spirit's descent, as well as permanent 
rest upon Jesus, which indicated his 
Messiahship. John had previously 
been enabled by divine illumination to 
know that Jesus was the promised 
Christ (see Matt. 3:11, 12,14), but 
here he has ocular demonstration of the 
fact, not so much, however, to strength- 
en his own belief, as to make him a 
more credible witness of the fact to 
others. Baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 
John has not referred before to this 
office of Christ. But his qualifying 
■words, "I baptize with water" (v. 26), 
imply another baptism of a very differ- 
ent nature. Here that baptism is made 
known. The Jews thought that in the 
time of the Messiah, baptism would be 
administered by him' and his attending 
prophets, such as Elias, Jeremias, &c. 
See N. on v. 24. John, in reference to 
this opinion, avers that Christ would 
baptize, but it would be a baptism not 
with water but with the Holy Ghost, 
not an external. and symbolic rite, but 
one internal and effectual to the purify- 
ing of the soul from all moral unclean- 
ness. It is worthy of note, that we 
have no instance recorded in which our 
Lord himself baptized with water, al- 
though his disciples administered the 
rite (see 4 : 1, 2). He was indeed a 
Baptizer, but not in the sense in which 
the Jews believed that the Messiah 
would baptize. 

34. John here reiterates the testimo- 
ny which he had borne respecting Jesus 
Christ. The nature and importance of 
the subject rendered it necessary that 



35 % Again the next day after, 
John stood, and two of his disci- 
ples ; 

36 And looking upon Jesus as 
he walked, he saith, y Behold the 
Lamb of God ! 

37 And the two disciples heard 
him speak, and they followed 
Jesus. 

y Ver. 29. 

the testimony should be full and explicit. 
I saw and bare record; literally, / have 
seen and borne testimony. The tenses of 
the verbs although the same, yet refer 
to acts viewed under different relations 
of time. The first / have seen, refers to 
one past act, the sight of the descend- 
ing Spirit upon Jesus ; the latter, / have 
testified, refers to an act which remains 
in full force and validity to the present 
time of the speaker. "It is a reference 
to his testimony at the time, as a thing 
on record in their memories, and as still 
continuing." Alford. That this is the 
Son of God ; i. e. the Incarnate Logos 
(vs. 14, 18). The expression Son of 
God, is not a varied repetition of the 
dignity of Jesus as disclosed in v. 33, 
but refers rather to what was proclaim- 
ed by the voice from heaven, which 
accompanied the descent of the Spirit 
upon him (Matt. 3 : 17 ; Mark 1:11; 
Luke 3 : 22). 

35—51. Jesus gains Disciples. The 
Jordan. Galilee. 

35. Again in reference to the repe- 
tition on this occasion of John's testi- 
mony that Jesus was the Lamb of God. 
See v. 29. The next day after the one 
spoken of in v. 29, and two days after 
the deputation had visited him from Je- 
rusalem. The sequence of events is 
here distinctly marked. John stood 
(literally ivas standing) in his usual 
place as a public teacher. 

36. As he walked " for exercise or 
meditation." Webster and Wilkinson. 
Behold the Lamb of God ! John repeats 
the declaration he had made on the 
preceding day. It seems to have pro- 
duced such an effect upon two of his 
disciples, that they immediately follow- 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER I. 



23 



38 Then Jesus turned, and saw 
them following, and saith unto 
them, What seek ye ? They said 
unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, 
being interpreted, Master,) where 
dwellest thou ? 

39 He saith unto them, Come 
and see. They came and saw 

ed Jesus. Some commentators have 
supposed that these disciples were ab- 
sent the previous day, and therefore 
heard this testimony of John now for 
the first time. But it is more natural 
to suppose, that the solemn reiteration 
of this testimony to the divine mission 
of Jesus, was what influenced them to 
leave John and attach themselves to 
him as his disciples. Followed Jesus, 
not in the special sense in which after- 
wards they left all and followed him, 
but, in order to learn something more 
from his own lips concerning himself. 

38. What seek ye ? i. e. ' what is your 
business with me that you thus follow my 
steps?' They probably followed him 
at some little distance, the awe and 
reverence inspired by the mysterious 
words of John (v. 30 ) preventing them 
from drawing near to him. Observing 
that they were following him as if wish- 
ing to accost him, our Lord turned and 
addressed them as here related. The 
question, which he put to them in re- 
gard to their purpose in thus following 
him, should not lead us to suppose that 
he who knew the hearts of all men (see 
2 : 24, 25), was ignorant of their motive, 
and proposed this question to obtain 
information thereof. It wag rather in- 
tended to inspire them with confidence, 
and place them upon an easy and friend- 
ly footing with him. Which is to say, 
kc. This, together with the interpre- 
tation of Rabboni in 20 : 16, shows that 
John's gospel was written primarily for 
those who did not understand the He- 
brew language. Where dwellest thou ? 
i. e. where is thy lodging-place ? Their 
intention was to obtain permission to 
call upon him at a suitable hour the 
next day, as it was now about four 
o'clock, P. M. (see v. 39). But in the 



where he dwelt, and abode with 
him that day : for it was about 
the tenth hour. 

40 One of the two which heard 
John speak, and followed him, 



was 2 Andrew, 
brother. 



Simon Peter's 



z Mt. 4 : is. 



style of Eastern simplicity, come and see, 
Jesus invited them at once to accom- 
pany him to the place of his abode, 
which they did. 

39. They came and saic, &c. i. e. they 
went with him to his lodging-place. 
The multitudes in attendance upon 
John's ministry, rendered it necessary 
for them to dwell in temporary booths 
or huts, or disperse themselves round 
about in the adjacent region, lliat 
day, i. e. that portion of it which re- 
mained after the tenth hour. Their 
visit may have been prolonged even in- 
to the evening ; but there would be 
three or four hours for them to con- 
verse with Jesus before night came fully 
on. For it teas about, &c. The word 
in the original translated for, is and or 
but, either of which would be the bet- 
ter rendering, as the sentence is not a 
dependent but co-ordinate one, intended 
simply to specify the time of the day 
when these disciples visited Jesus, in 
order to give prominence to the fact of 
his readiness at all hours to receive 
those who came to him for instruction, 
even at a late hour of the day. It fur- 
nishes also a reason why they spent 
the whole remainder of the day with 
him. 

40. The name of one of the disciples 
is here given. Why the name of the 
other disciple was omitted to be given, 
we have no means of knowing. The 
most probable conjecture is that it was 
John himself, whose modesty forbade 
his referring to himself by name in oth- 
er portions of the gospel. See 13 : 23, 
25; 19:26; 21: 20. 

41. He first. The word first is not 
an adverb but an adjective, the sense 
being that while both the persons men- 
tioned went to seek Peter, Andrew 



24 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



41 He first findeth his own 
brother Simon, and saith unto 
him, We have found the Messias, 
which is, being interpreted, the 
Christ. 

42 And he brought him to Je- 
sus. And when Jesus beheld 
him, he said, Thou art Simon 
the son of Jonas : a thou shalt be 

a Mt. 16 : 18. 

was the first to find him. His own 
brother; literally, his brother (viz.) his 
own, the last words being added, as Al- 
ford conjectures, not merely as a pos- 
sessive pronoun, but as a reason why 
he sought to find him. Webster and 
Wilkinson think that some family cir- 
cumstances unknown to us may ac- 
count for its use here. The Messias. 
See N. on Matt. 1:1. Tlie Christ. Dr. 
Eobinson, after the best MSS., omits 
very properly the article, the word 
being the translation of Messias, not 
the Messias. And he brought him to 
Jesus. How beautifully expressive is 
this of the solicitude which Andrew 
felt, that his brother Simon should also 
enjoy the privilege and pleasure of Je- 
sus' conversation. 

42. He brought him unto Jesus. The 
conduct of Andrew on this occasion 
shows him to have possessed the same 
energy and pi'omptness of action, 
which so eminently characterized Pe- 
ter. Beheld him. The word implies 
an earnest, steadfast gaze, as though 
our Lord was reading Peter's most hid- 
den purposes and character. The new 
and expressive name which he gave to 
Peter, after looking so intently upon 
him, must have gone far to convince 
him of our Lord's extraordinary charac- 
ter. Indeed no one can read this, and 
not see upon the very face of the nar- 
ration, that it was a prophetic annunci- 
ation of that which no mere man, at 
first sight of a stranger, could have un- 
derstandiugly uttered. " I own I can-' 
not but think with Bengel, Paulus, 
Strauss, that the knowledge shown by 
the Lord of Simon is intended to be 
miraculous." Alford. Stier also refers 



called Cephas, which is by inter- 
pretation, A stone. 

43 1" The day following Jesus 
would go forth into Galilee, and 
findeth Philip, and saith unto him, 
Follow me. 

44 Now * Philip was of Beth- 
saida, the city of Andrew and 
Peter. 

o Ch. 12 : 21. 

to this knowledge as supernatural: "I 
know who and what thou art from 
thy birth till thy present coming to 
me. I name thee, I give thee a new 
name, I know what I will make of thee 
in thy following of me and for my 
kingdom." Thou art Simon, i. e. thy 
name is Simon. Cephas is the Hebrew 
for rock. The Greek equivalent is Pe- 
ter, by Avhich name the Apostle is usu- 
ally designated in the New Testament. 
On the significancy of this name, see 
Ns. on Matt. 4:18; 16: 18. 

43. Tlie day following the calling and 
naming of Peter. The sequence of 
events is here distinctly marked. Would 
go forth, i. e. was purposing to go 
forth ; or was on the point of setting 
out, in accordance with previous inten- 
tion or purpose. Galilee. See N. on 
Matt. 2 : 22. Findeth, i. e. falls in 
with, or meets with. Follow me. This 
was the usual form of direction to be- 
come one's disciple. He had not thus 
addressed Andrew, or Peter, or the oth- 
er disciples. They of their own accord 
attended upon his instructions. None 
of the disciples, however, were insepa- 
rably attached to him as followers, un- 
til after they had received their second 
call. See Matt. 4:18; Mark 1 : 17. 

44. Now Philip icas of Bethsaida. 
This was his native place. Andrew 
and Peter were also born there, al- 
though, as it appears from Matt. 8 : 14 ; 
Mark 1 : 29, they had removed to Ca- 
pernaum. Thomson (Land and Book, 
vol. ii. p. 32) places Bethsaida at the 
entrance of the Jordan into the lake of 
Galilee, on both banks of the stream. 
As that portion of the town on the 
western bank would fall within the lim- 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER I. 



25 



45 Philip findeth e Natlianael, 
and saith unto him, We have 
found him of whom * Moses in the 

c Ch. 21 : 2. 

cl Ge. 3 : 15 ; & 49 : 10 ; De. IS : IS ; see on Lu. 

24: 27. 

its of Galilee, Dr. Thomson thinks that 
one object which Philip the Tetrarch 
had in rebuilding the part on the east 
side, and changing its name, was to 
detach it entirely from its former rela- 
tions, and establish his own right over 
it. He thinks, therefore, that there 
was but one Bethsaida at the head of 
the lake, and that it was at the mouth 
of the Jordan. 

45. The incidents now related took 
place most likely after the return of 
our Lord to Galilee. Findeth Xathan- 
ael. As Jesus tarried a short time at 
Cana of Galilee, where he attended a 
wedding with his disciples, it is proba- 
ble that Xathanael was found of his 
brother, and introduced to our Lord 
either at or near this village. Na- 
thanael is thought by some to be the 
proper name of Bartholomew. See X. 
on Matt. 10 : 3. Webster and Wilkin- 
son refer as proof of this to the fact, 
that Xathanael is mentioned here and 
in 21 : 2, in connection with the apos- 
tles, but his name does not occur in 
any list of the Twelve ; whereas Bar- 
tholomew's name is in every list, but is 
not mentioned elsewhere. The fact 
that Bartholomew's name in every list 
is joined to that of Philip, would seem 
to indicate that intimacy between the 
two, which is implied here of Philip 
and Xathanael. We have found, i. e. 
met with. The verb in the previous 
clause, Philip findeth Xathanael, indi- 
cates search or inquiry. Him of whom 
Hoses in the law, ke. This is a circum- 
locution for the Messiah. The con- 
struction of the original is well suited 
to the joyous excitement of Philip at 
having found the Messiah, and the in- 
tentness of his thoughts upon that per- 
sonage, the relative clause being placed 
first : whom Jfoses in the laio urote 
about, and (also) the prophets, tee have 
found, Jesus of Xazareth, kc. The ex- 
pression Jfoses in the law, is to be re- 
Yol. III.— 2 



law, and the e prophets, did write, 
Jesus f of Nazareth, the son of 
Joseph. 

tils. 4:2: & 7:14; & 9:6; & 53: 2; Mi. 5:2; 

Zee. 6 : 12 ; & 9 : 9 ; see more on Lu. 24: 27. 
/Mt. 2:23; Lu. 2:4. 

ferred to such direct prophecies as Gen. 
49 : 10 ; Xumb. 24 : 17 ; Deut. 18 : 15, 
and to the covenant promise made to 
Abraham and repeated to Isaac and 
Jacob. See Gen. 12:3; 22 : 18 ; 26 : 
4 ; 28 : 14. Tlie prophets. See Isa. 
7 : 14; 9:5; 40 : 10, 11 ; 53 : 1-12; 
Jer. 23 : 5 ; 33 : 14 ; Ezek. 32 : 23 ; 
Dan. 9 : 24 ; Micah 5:2; Zech. 6:12. 
Jesus. The etymological significancy 
of this name (see Matt. 1 : 21). could 
not well have been overlooked by these 
pious and reflective men. Of Xazareth 
or the Xazarene, is added for the sake 
of definiteness. The order of the ori- 
ginal is quite peculiar: Jesus the son 
of Joseph, him (or the one) from Xaza-. 
reth. Prominence is thus given to the 
place of his residence, as though what 
might have been objected by some to 
his Messiahship from the obscurity of 
his family and place of abode, had no 
influence whatever upon the mind of 
Philip. The son of Joseph. Such he 
was by general repute ; but how ab- 
surd to draw the inference from this, 
that John the Evangelist was igno- 
rant of the miraculous conception of 
Mary, as related by Matthew and Luke. 
These are not his words, but those of 
Philip, who speaks here in accordance 
with the facts of our Lord's history, 
as they appeared to men to have ta- 
ken place. It seems quite evident 
from this passage, that both Philip and 
Xathanael had some previous acquaint- 
ance with Jesus and his family connec- 
tions. 

46. Can there any good thing, &c. 
See X. on Matt. 2 : 23. As Xathanael 
was himself a Galilean, these words 
show that the Galileans themselves 
shared in the contempt in which Xaza- 
reth was held by the Jews. While re- 
ferring thus to the universal sentiment 
of the Jews, he gave utterance to hia 
own doubts that so exalted a personage 
as the Messiah should come from so 



26 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



46 And Nathanael said unto 
him, 9 Can there any good thing 
come out of Nazareth? Philip 
saith unto him, Come and see. 

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming 

fir Ch. 7:41,42,52. 



obscure a place, and one held in such 
ill repute. The allusion is to some- 
thing more than the smallness and in- 
significance of the town, as Alford sup- 
poses. The words any good thing, most 
evidently refer to the low repute in 
which the Nazarenes were held through- 
out the land. Come and see, i. e. come 
and judge for yourself. The words are 
expressive of confidence, that Nathan- 
ael would concur with the speaker in 
his opinion of Jesus. The phrase come 
and see, seems to have been an ordinary 
mode of speech, when a personal inves- 
tigation as to the truth of an allegation 
is challenged. See 11 : 34; Cant. 3 : 
11; Rev. 5 : 1,' 3, 5, 7 ; Ps. 66 : 5 ; 
46 : 9. "It was at the same time the 
common saying of the Rabbi to his dis- 
ciples, as frequently in the Talmud, 
'come and let it be explained to thee.' " 
Stier. In regard to these words of 
Philip and Nathanael, it is well said by 
"Webster and Wilkinson, that they fur- 
nish an exemplification of prejudice, 
and the right method of dealing with 
it. Philip did not attempt to argue 
with his friend, in reference to his prej- 
udice against recognizing Jesus the 
Nazarene as the King of Israel, but 
simply requests him to come and see 
for himself. This Nathanael unhesitat- 
ingly did, and his doubts and preju- 
dices were all removed by the over- 
whelming evidence which Jesus gave 
of his divine mission and character. 

47. Jesus saw, &c. This is to be re- 
ferred not only to Nathanael's bodily 
approach, but to the object and purpose 
for which he sought Jesus. He came 
as a sincere inquirer after truth, and 
ready to do whatever duty might re- 
quire. Saith of him in his hearing, as 
is evident from Nathanael's reply in the 
next verse. Behold an Israelite indeed, 
i. e. a true descendant of Israel, one 
who is such in spirit, as well as in name. 



to him, and saith of him, Behold 
h an Israelite indeed, in whom is 
no guile ! 



7iPs.32:2; 6-78:1; ch. 8:39: Eo. 2:28, 29; 
&9:G. 



The words do not imply that Nathanael 
was absolutely without sin or imper- 
fection, but that he was a true, honest, 
and upright man, who sought and ob- 
tained from God the pardon of his sins, 
and to whom his iniquity was not im- 
puted, his transgressions being covered. 
See Ps. 32 : 1, 2. Some expositors 
very erroneously find in these words, 
an ironical reproof of Nathanael's prej- 
udice against the claims of Jesus, on 
the ground of his being a Nazarene. 
The words in whom is no guile (i. e. 
deceit, hypocrisy), prove the truth of 
the interpretation above given. Ref- 
erence is had, as some think, to the 
crafty character of Jacob ; behold an 
Israelite indeed, but not one in whom 
cunning and craft predominate as in 
his ancestor Jacob's character. But 
such a reference, and on such an oc- 
casion, to that point in Jacob's char- 
acter in which he appears the least 
worthy of praise, would be far-fetched 
and incongruous to the purpose of 
Jesus, which was to give Nathanael the 
very highest meed of praise in denom- 
inating him a true descendant of Israel, 
who had power over the angel and 
prevailed ; and by his strength had 
power with God (Hos. 12 : 3, 4). It 
was rather the delineation of the char- 
acter of a good man (Ps. 15:2; 32 : 2), 
and therefore added in confirmation of 
the declaration that he was an Israelite 
indeed. Our Lord was not slow to 
praise such as were worthy of commen- 
dation. See Matt. 8 : 10 ; 15 : 28 ; 16 : 
17; Mark 12 : 34. 

48. The words of Jesus presumed such 
an intimate knowledge of Nathanael's 
character, that in a tone of surprise, he 
asked him whence he had derived his 
knowledge of him. The idea seemed 
not yet to have entered his mind, that 
Jesus was -supernaturally acquainted 
with his heart and disposition. In 



A. D. SO.] 



CHAPTER I. 



27 



48 Xathanael saith unto him, 
Whence knowest thou me ? Je- 
sus answered and said unto him, 
Before that Philip called thee, 
when thou wast under the fig tree, 
I saw thee. 

49 Xathanael answered and 
saith unto him, Babbi, f thou art 
the Son of God ; thou art * the 
King of Israel. 

50 Jesus answered and said 

»Mt 14: S3. 

order to enlighten him in regard to 
this divine feature in his character, 
and as a preponderating weight against 
the objection which had arisen in 
Xathanael's mind from his low and ob- 
scure condition as a Xazarene, our Lord 
refers to an incident which took place 
in such secluded circumstances, that his 
knowledge of it must have been drawn 
evidently from no ordinary source. 
Before that Philip called thee, kc. 
Our Lord refers to a fig tree, under 
which Xathanael was sitting when 
he was found by Philip. This could 
have been known to those two per- 
sons only, as Jesus was probably at 
a considerable distance from the place 
referred to. His knowledge of the 
transaction was so evidently supernat- 
ural, that Xathanael yielded at once to 
the evidence, and acknowledged him 
to be the Son of God and King of 
Israel. So overwhelming and sudden 
a conviction of this great truth could 
not have been wrought in Xathanael's 
mind, unless the reference to the fig 
tree had involved a supernatural knowl- 
edge, which Xathanael knew belonged 
to no mere man. Stier thinks that our 
Lord with his bodily eyes saw Xathanael 
under the fig tree ; but at the same 
time read the thoughts of his heart, 
with eyes opened by the Father. But 
would the evidence of our Lord's super- 
natural character have been so sudden 
and conclusive, had Xathanael supposed 
that his position under the fig tree had 
been seen with the bodily eyes of 
Jesus ? He rightly argued the omnis- 



tinto him, Because I said unto 
thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, 
believest thou? thou shalt see 
greater things than these. 

51 And he saith unto him, Ver- 
ily, verily, I say unto you, l Here- 
after ye shall see heaven open, 
and the angels of Grod ascending 
and descending upon the Son of 
man. 

fc lit 21:5; £27:11. 42; ch. 18:37; &19:3. 

I Ge. 28 : 12 ; Mt 4 : 11 ; Lu. 2 : 9, 13 ; & 22 : 43 ; 

& 24 : 4 ; Ac. 1 : 10. 



cience of Jesus from this supernatural 
external vision, and having been fully 
convinced of this great and wonderful 
truth, he is not slow to admit that he 
is the Searcher of hearts, the Son of 
God and King of Israel. 

49. Son of God. The more usual 
ilessianic appellation among the Jews 
was Son of J) avid, but the spontaneous 
application of the term Son of God by 
Xathanael, shows that it was also in 
vogue. The feeling that prompted 
Xathanael to its use, was much like that 
which possessed the mind of the Psalm- 
ist in view of God's omniscience (Ps. 
139: 1-12). The addition of the words 
King of Israel, shows that the speaker 
was imbued with the common senti- 
ment of the nation, that the Messiah 
was to erect a temporal kingdom. 

50. Our Lord's reply to Xathanael 
was not one of blame and censure, but 
of approval and encouragement. A 
slight reference is made to his frank and 
honest expression of belief in the Mes- 
siahship of Jesus, while at the same time 
a promise is given of still greater proof 
of that, which he had so readily ad- 
mitted on comparatively slender evi- 
dence. Believest thou in my ilessiah- 
ship ? Greater things, i. e. more open 
and wonderful manifestations of divine 
power. 

51. This verse is explanatory of 
the greater things, promised in the 
preceding verse. Hereafter ye shall 
see, &c. The language is highly figu- 
rative, being borrowed from Jacob's 
vision (Gen. 28 : 12). It was both 



28 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 80. 



CHAPTER II. 

ND the third day there "was a 
. marriage in a Cana of Grali- 



symbolical of Divine protection, and 
of remarkable interpositions on the 
part of God, which would be openly 
manifested. It was a declaration, that 
his disciples should see in the numerous 
and stupendous miracles wrought by 
Jesus, such intimacy of connection be- 
tween the Son of man and heaven, that 
it would be as though the heavenly 
messengers were continually passing to 
and fro, showing the most intimate re- 
lationship between him and his heav- 
enly Father. Some take this in a literal 
sense, and refer it to the Transfiguration 
and the Ascension. But on neither of 
these occasions, were the heavens 
visibly opened, and angels seen to de- 
scend and ascend as here . stated. The 
Transfiguration, moreover, was not wit- 
nessed either by Nathanael or Philip. 
Such an event, however, had occurred, 
but not in presence of the disciples. 
The heavens were opened above him 
on the occasion of his baptism (Matt. 
3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3 : 21), and 
angels ministered unto him in the 
desert of temptation (Matt. 4: 12), and 
in the agonies of the garden (Luke 22 : 
43). The literal reality of what is here 
said was not then wanting in the life of 
Jesus ; and his miracles evinced that 
there was a continued opening of 
heaven over him, and an angelic ser- 
vice, such as might be expected to 
wait upon the Incarnate Son of God. 
The expression heaven open, is explain- 
ed in JT. on Matt. 3: 16. 

CHAPTER II. 

1-12. The Marriage at Cana op 
Galilee. Alford remarks that in the 
miracle here recorded, was the first ful- 
filment of the announcement in the last 
verse of the preceding chapter. 

1. The third day after Nathanael's 
call. Some interpret it as the third 
day after the arrival of our Lord in 
Galilee. But it is more natural to re- 
fer the time-point of reckoning, to the 



lee; and the mother of Jesus 
was there : 

a See Jos. 19 : 28. 



events just related in the preceding 
chapter. Dr. Robinson says that Cana 
was not over fifty miles from Betha- 
bara, and the journey in returning to 
Galilee did not require more than two 
days. A marriage, i. e. a marriage 
feast. See N. on Matt. 22 : 2. Cana 
of Galilee, so called to distinguish it 
from Cana in Asher, not far from Tyre 
(Josh. 19 : 28.) It was situated seven 
miles north of Nazareth, and about 
three miles north-east of Sepphoris. 
Thomson (Land and Book, vol. ii. p. 
124) says that "there is not now a 
habitable house in the humble village, 
where our Lord sanctioned, by his pre- 
sence and miraculous assistance, the 
all important and world-wide institution 
of marriage." Dr. Thomson very im- 
pressively and pertinently refers to the 
fact, that the proudest and largest of 
the cities of the earth may pass away 
and be forgotten, but not so Cana of 
Galilee, which shall be remembered to 
the end of time and to the end of the 
world, whenever and wherever there 
shall be the voice of the bride and the 
bridegroom. " Some names we pro- 
nounce with honor, some with shame 
and sorrow, many with cold indiffer- 
ence, but Cana will mingle in the song 
of the happy, to symbolize the peace 
and purity of domestic happiness — the 
bliss of wedded love." All around 
Cana the country is so wild, as to be 
the favorite hunting grounds of the in- 
habitants in the vicinity. Mother of 
Jesus. It is remarked by commenta- 
tors that John never mentions her by 
name, probably for the reason that she 
was so well known, and perhaps to 
give emphasis to the fact, that Jesus had 
an earthly mother, but no earthly fa- 
ther. Alford refers it to John's intima- 
cy with her, in pursuance of the injunc- 
tion in 19 : 26, 27, remarking also that 
he never names his own brother James. 
2. Was called, i. e. was invited. His 
disciples. There were five who are 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER II. 



29 



2 And both Jesus was called, 
and his disciples, to the marriage. 

3 And when they wanted wine, 

mentioned in the preceding chapter, as 
having attached themselves to his com- 
pany. Jesus seems to have been in- 
vited on the ground of previous ac- 
quaintance, if not relationship. His 
disciples were doubtless included in the 
invitation, as being his particular 
friends, for Ave cannot "well suppose 
that being called as they were from 
different towns, they would all have 
been acquaintances of the family. Our 
Lord here in the very outset of his 
public ministry, honored, by his sacred 
presence, the institution of marriage, 
and taught his followers that asceticism 
was not an element in the religion he 
was about to establish. The Son of 
man came eating and drinking (sec N. 
on Matt. 11 : 19), thus participating in 
all the innocent gratifications of our 
nature, and leaving an example of 
cheerfulness and freedom from all sin- 
gularities and eccentricities of charac- 
ter, worthy of our closest imitation. 

3. When they wanted wine ; literally, 
their wine having fallen short. The 
mother of Jesus, &c. The general in- 
terest and direction of affairs which 
she seems to have taken on this 
occasion, lead us to suppose that 
she was a near relative, or a very 
intimate friend of the family. It is a 
far more difficult question to answer, 
why she came to Jesus with the intelli- 
gence that the wine had failed. Ben- 
gel suggests that it was intended as a 
hint, that they all should leave, and 
thus be the means of breaking up the 
assembly, before the embarrassment of 
their host should appear. Calvin of- 
fers as a reason for this suggestion of 
Mary, that by some pious exhortation 
he might make the time pass pleasantly 
and profitably to the guests, and at the 
same time relieve the bridegroom from 
embarrassment and shame. The usual 
mode of explanation is to refer it to an 
expectation and implied wish on the 
part of his mother, that he should mirac- 
ulously remove the difficulty. But we 



the mother of Jesus saith unto 
him, They have no wine. 



can hardly suppose that she expected 
through him a miraculous supply. It 
is rather to be attributed to a readiness, 
in moments of embarrassment or per- 
plexity, to communicate the cause of 
anxiety to one's friends. Sympathy, if 
not relief, in such cases is sought for. 
The mother of Jesus may have come to 
him on this occasion the more readily, 
from the probable fact that the wine 
fell short, through the unexpected pre- 
sence of his disciples whom he brought 
with him to the marriage festival. There 
may indeed have been some vague re- 
liance upon his wisdom in extricating 
the family from the unpleasant predica- 
ment in which they found themselves, 
yet, as has been remarked, we can 
hardly imagine that she expected the 
interposition of his miraculous power. 

As it regards the use of wine at this 
marriage feast, and the miracle by 
which our Lord changed water into that 
beverage, the reader needs hardly to 
be informed, that wine was as common 
a drink in Palestine, as cider is in por- 
tions of our own country. Their wine 
was so free from the alcoholic element, 
that it produced intoxication only 
through fermentation or by being drug- 
ged. In France, Germany, Italy, and 
other wine-producing countries, very 
seldom is drunkenness found to result 
from the use of the pure juice of the 
grape. This must be taken into con- 
sideration, in judging of the moral as- 
pect of this miracle of our Lord. No 
plea whatever can be justly drawn from 
it, for the use of such adulterated and 
poisonous wines, as are generally im- 
ported and vended in this country. See 
further X. on v. 8. 

4. The answer of our Lord to his 
mother, is not without some difficulties 
of explanation. That it is not one of 
censure, much less of disrespect, is very 
clear. The term woman, as used here 
and on that most tender and solemn 
occasion, when he was about to bow 
his head in death on the cross (19 : 26), 



30 JO 

4 Jesus saith unto her, b "Wo- 
man, c what have I to do with 

Z>Ch. 19:26. c So 2 Sa. 16: 10; A 19:22. 



contains in it nothing disrespectful, ev- 
ery such idea being what is transfer- 
red to it, from the manner and intent 
with which the word is sometimes spo- 
ken in our own language at the present 
time. It is to be noticed that in the 
original, the word woman, is placed after 
the words what have I to do ivith thee ? 
This position diminishes much of its 
apparent abruptness and harshness. 
What have I to do with thee, is translat- 
ed by some, what is that to you and me ? 
which might imply that it was the 
bridegroom's province to furnish wine 
for the guests, and not his or his moth- 
er's. But this not only overlooks the 
Greek idiom, but to apply the softest 
term which it deserves, makes the re- 
ply of our Lord one of careless trifling 
and selfishness. " What concern is 
it of ours that they have no Avine ? Let 
them look to their own affairs, and 
make provision for the exigency as best 
they may." I cannot for a moment 
adopt such an explanation. Besides it 
does not at all comport with the recital 
which follows, in which it appears that 
he did make it a concern of his, and by 
a most stupendous miracle supplied the 
deficiency, which had thus so suddenly 
and unexpectedly embarrassed his kind 
host. Trench and others give it this 
explanation: "Let me alone; what is 
there common to thee and me? we 
stand in this matter on altogether dif- 
ferent grounds." See Judg. 11 : 12 ; 1 
Kings 17 : 18 ; 2 Kings 3:13 (LXX.), 
where the same elliptical phrase is 
used. This interpretation undoubtedly 
is the true one, although Trench does 
not in my opinion carry out its ap- 
plication to the present passage, with 
his usual perspicuity and good judg- 
ment. 

I prefer to so explain it, as to bring 
out this as the prominent idea : ' What 
have I now to do with the cares and 
perplexities of time, having already 
entered upon the spiritual work for 
which I came into the world. You, 



N. 






[A. D 


. 30. 


thee? 
come. 


a 


mine hour 

<ZCh. 7:6. 


is not 


yet 



my friends, are engrossed in the things 
which pertain to this life; but I have 
henceforth a higher mission, and one 
which you cannot share with me. 
Why then do you come to me with such 
matters ? ' This meets the exegetical 
wants of the passage, which evidently 
denies the presence of any common 
bond of interest between the parties 
here represented. See N. on Matt. 8 : 
29 ; Mark 1:21; Luke 8 : 28. The sen- 
timent in brief is this : ' with such 
worldly matters as these, I have no 
longer any thing to do. It is your pro- 
vince to attend to them and not mine.' 
This exposition of the passage is cor- 
roborated by the next clause, my hour, 
(i. e. my time for working miracles) 
has not yet come, which stands as an 
additional reason why he could not 
properly be applied to in this emer- 
gency. The answer is brief and sen- 
tentious: 'It does not belong to my 
mission to supply the temporal wants 
of men ; and besides my hour for work- 
ing miracles has not yet come.' This 
is the whole scope and tenor of the re- 
ply of our Lord to his mother. It is no 
objection to this view, that he at once 
proceeded to work the required miracle. 
He did this in his love and wisdom, 
although in circumstances where there 
was no claim, so to speak, upon his 
miraculous interference. Alford thinks 
that our Lord had intimated to his 
mother his intention, and that her fault 
was, " the too rash hastening on of 
what had been his fixed purpose." He 
deduces this from v. 5, where it ap- 
pears that Mary was confident that a 
miracle would be wrought, and there- 
fore bids the servants to scrupulously 
follow his directions, which would seem 
to indicate, that she anticipated the 
very method of its perfoi'mancc. Such 
an inference may be justly drawn from 
v. 5 ; but may not the words of Mary 
have been founded on some remark of 
our Lord which is omitted? A great 
truth is contained in the words, what 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER II. 



31 



5 His mother saith unto the 
servants, "Whatsoever he saith un- 
to you, do it. 

6 And there were set there six 
waterpots of stone, * after the 
manner of the purifying of the 
Jews, containing two or three 
firkins apiece. 



have I to do with thee ? My hour is not 
yet come, and it is therefore recorded ; 
but there was no equal necessity of re- 
porting the subsequent conversation, 
on which the direction given to the ser- 
vants in v. 5, may have been founded. 

5. Mary, as has been remarked in the 
previous Note, drew the inference from 
some words of Jesus not recorded, that 
although his hour for commencing the 
procession of miracles, by which his 
divine character and mission were to 
be proved, had not fully come, he 
would yet condescend to relieve their 
host of the embarrassment, which re- 
sulted from the failure of wine. She 
therefore gives directions to the ser- 
vants to render exact obedience to his 
commands, even if they should be 
somewhat strange and inexplicable. 

6. Six waterpots. These were large 
stone jars, in which water was kept for 
the various washings prescribed at 
feasts. The selection of these jars, as 
the repository of this miraculous wine, 
prevented every appearance of collusion 
or imposition, since no one would look 
for wine in large and common water- 
pots. After the manner of, i. e. in ac- 
cordance with the custom of. Ftcrify- 
ing or washing before meals. Two or 
three firkins apiece. On the supposition 
that they contained £| firkins each, and 
reckoning the firkin at 8-£ gallons, the 
capacity of the whole would be about 
133 gallons. This large quantity of 
wine made the miracle the more striking 
and apparent. It does not follow from 
this, that the wine thus miraculously 
made was all drunk on this occasion, al- 
though the report of the wondrous mira- 
cle, doubtless, drew great numbers to 
the feast, all of whom would wish to 



7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill 
the waterpots with water. And 
they filled them up to the brim. 

8 And he saith unto them, 
Draw out now, and bear unto the 
governor of the feast. And they 
bare it. 

e Ma. 7:3. 



drink, if for no other purpose than to sat- 
isfy themselves of the truth of the affair. 

7. Fill the waterpots with water. 
Had our Lord created the wine in 
empty vessels, some might have denied 
that they were empty, or avowed that 
in some way or other, wine had been 
conveyed into them. But the testi- 
mony of the servants, that they had 
themselves filled the vessels with pure 
water, would preclude all such objec- 
tions to the reality of the miracle. 
The minuteness of the directions here 
given, reminds us of the caution prac- 
tised by Elijah (1 Kings 18: 33-35), to 
preclude every appearance of imposi- 
tion in his contest with the priests of 
Baal. Up to the brim, so that no space 
was left for the reception of any wine, 
had there been an attempt to pour ic 
in. The miracle was thus defended on 
all points against cavils and objections. 

8. Between the act of filling the ves- 
sels with water, and the direction here 
given, the creative process, by which 
the water became wine, is to be placed. 
This miracle, which was one of the most 
stupendous on record, and wrought 
without the utterance of a word or any 
physical contact, led the way in that nu- 
merous train of miracles, which estab- 
lished beyond doubt that our Lord Jesus 
was what he claimed to be, the SON 
OF GOD. The moral aspect of this 
miracle has furnished serious difficulties, 
even to sincere inquirers after truth. 
But a brief reference to the facts of the 
case, will relieve the subject of all em- 
barrassment. Here was a marriage- 
festival, one of the most joyous and 
time honored of all feasts. On such 
occasions the wines of the country, 
which, as we have before remarked, 



32 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



9 When the ruler of the feast 
had tasted f the water that was 
made wine, and knew not whence 
it was, (but the servants which 

were wholly free from the alcoholic 
stimulant which forms an ingredient of 
our imported wines, were freely and 
harmlessly drunk. This wine which 
was the pure juice of the grape, had 
failed on the occasion of this marriage- 
feast, either through accident, or an 
unexpected increase of the guests. 
There were then no circumstances an- 
terior to the miracle, to render its per- 
formance untimely or improper. The 
question is then narrowed down to this 
simple point, whether it was proper for 
our Lord to perform a miracle to fur- 
nish that beverage for the feast, which 
was a common and universal drink, 
and had been so for centuries — which 
would cheer and enliven, but unless 
drunk in very large quantities, would 
not intoxicate. This turns on the 
point, whether a festival of this sort 
was in itself sinful. If so, then it was 
wrong for our Lord or any one of 
the other guests to be present. But 
it was not in itself sinful. Moses es- 
tablished festivals ; Jesus Christ attend- 
ed them. If it was not wrong for 
those who gave the feasts to furnish 
the usual entertainments; it was not 
wrong for our Lord to provide from 
the stores of his infinite bounty, any 
article, which, as in the present instance, 
had fallen short from inadvertence or 
some unforeseen contingency. It was 
from his exhaustless stores that every 
thing pertaining to the feast had been 
provided, and his miraculous supply of 
wine Avas simply an open and palpable 
display of his providential bounty and 
love, which in secret was going on in 
uninterrupted process for the supply 
of the wants of all mankind. Besides 
no one will venture to affirm that the 
use of such wine, as was drunk in 
Palestine, the pure expression of the 
grape, was sinful. It is the abuse and 
not the use of such wine, which is to be 
avoided as sinful. But as has been 
remarked, this abuse was far less likely 



drew the water knew,} the gov- 
ernor of the feast called the bride- 
groom, 

/Ch. 4:46. 



to happen in a wine-producing country 
like Palestine, than here, where so little 
of it is found in its purity. There was 
a moral too in this the first of our 
Lord's miracles. His disciples had 
previously been in attendance upon 
John's ministry, and two of them at 
least had been his disciples ( 1 : 35), and 
had doubtless imbibed many of his 
rigid and ascetic principles. Our Lord 
by his attendance upon this marriage- 
feast, and the miracle which he wrought, 
showed that his dispensation was in 
this respect different from that of John, 
and thus corrected any tendency to 
asceticism, which might have arisen from 
a desire to imitate the stern and self- 
denying habits of the Baptist. See N. 
on Matt. 11 : 18, 19. Draw out. This 
word is used primarily of bailing out 
the hold of a ship. Hence it has 
here the implied signification draw out 
freely, and is expressive of the large 
quantity of wine which they now had 
on hand, in contrast with the stinted 
measure with which the wine, as it 
gradually decreased, had probably been 
passed around to the guests, evinc- 
ing the fear that it would not hold out 
to the end of the feast. Governor of 
the feast, i. e. the one who arranged 
the guests, saw that the wants and 
wishes of all were gratified, and in a 
word, exercised a general superintend- 
ence over all things pertaining to the 
feast. Such a person is referred to in 
numberless instances by the Greek 
and Roman writers. From the fact 
that the governor of the feast here 
tasted of the wine, it is probable that 
he himself was a guest, being some 
relative or intimate friend of the 
family. 

9. Had tasted. The construction in 
the original refers this to a good hearty 
draught, and not to the mere sipping or 
tasting, which would have been followed 
by a different case. The wine was of that 
rich and mellow flavor which needed not 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER II. 



10 And saith unto him, Every 
man at the bemnnino; doth set 
forth good wine ; and when men 



a close and critical exercise of the power 
of taste to discern its excellence, but 
which was apparent even when taken 
in large draughts, and with no particu- 
lar reference to the trial of its virtues. 
This construction of the original inci- 
dentally furnishes, therefore, additional 
proof of the superior excellence of the 
wine thus miraculously provided for 
the feast. Knew not whence it was. 
This made his testimony to the superior 
quality of the wine the more valuable, 
for it provedthat there was no collusion 
between him and Jesus. It also shows 
that it was not the province of the ruler 
of the feast to provide for the enter- 
tainment, but only to regulate and su- 
perintend the ordering of the feast. It 
would seem here that the ruler had not 
been made aware of the deficiency of 
the wine, much less of the wondrous 
miracle which had been performed by 
Jesus. Which drew the water ; more 
literally, who had drawn the water, 
which had been made wine. Some 
very erroneously refer this drawing of 
the water, to the act of bearing it from 
the jars to the governor of the feast. 
These expositors would make the crea- 
tive change from water to wine, to 
have taken place after it had been 
drawn from the vessels, and while it 
was being borne to the governor of the 
feast. But this not only detracts from 
the grandeur of the miracle, but is op- 
posed to all the circumstances of the 
transaction. What was the necessity 
of filling to the brim these huge water- 
pots, if what was drawn from them was 
water and changed to wine on its way 
to the master of the feast ? How 
useless the recorded number of these 
stone jars and their capacity, if the 
water with which they were filled was 
not wholly converted to wine, but only 
such portions as were drawn out to be 
served up to the guests ? How in- 
conclusive would be the miracle, if 
thus made dependent upon the evidence 
that the change was wrought in the 
Tol. III.— 2* 



hare well drunk, then that which 
is worse : but thou hast kept the 
good wine until now. 

water, while borne along in the vessels 
with which the servants distributed it to 
the guests, and which in such a case 
might have been attributed to some 
collusion between the servants and 
Jesus or his mother, by which they 
substituted, on the way to the governor 
of the feast, wine for the water which 
they had drawn from the stone jars — I 
say, how inconclusive would this mira- 
cle have thus been, when compared 
with the miraculous change taking 
place in the jars, which had been in the 
sight of all the servants filled with 
water, and now stood exposed to the 
most scrutinizing examination of all 
the guests, full of good wine, evincing 
its quality by its delicious flavor and 
rich and sparkling color. We may dis- 
miss all fear or apprehension, as to the 
unfavorable inferences which infidelity 
may sneeringly draw from so large a 
quantity of water changed into wine. 
The miracle reqilks no apology for its 
performance. Ire grand proportions 
should not be thrown into dim outline, 
through fear of any assault which may 
be made upon its moral tendency by 
the enemies of truth. The wine so 
miraculously produced was not taste- 
less, insipid, weak, but of such life and 
flavor, that the governor of the feast 
spontaneously called the bridegroom, 
and with an expression of astonishment 
at the departure from the usual custom 
in bringing forward the best wine at 
the beginning of the feast (see v. 10), 
attested to its superior excellence. 
There was not so small an amount of 
water thus converted into wine, that 
room was left to cavil and doubt 
whether, after all, such a miracle had 
been performed ; but the large water 
jars, filled to the brim with wine, dif- 
fusing flavor all over the house, and 
exposed to the sight and taste of every 
guest, bore the most complete and ir- 
refragable testimony that the miracle 
had actually been performed. Called 
the bridegroom. This indicates how 



u 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



11 This beginning of miracles 
did Jesus in Cana of Galilee/ and 
manifested forth his glory ; and 
his disciples believed on him. 

12 ^T After this he went down 
to Capernaum, he, and his moth- 

g Ch. 1 : 14. 

AMt 12:46. 

great was his surprise that wine of such 
fine flavor had been reserved to the 
close of the feast. This serves to 
heighten and confirm the greatness of 
the miracle. 

10. Every man who gives a feast. 
General usage or custom is here refer- 
red to. At the beginning of the feast. 
Doth set forth for the use of his guests. 
Have well drunk ; literally, have become 
drunk, but here from the very nature 
of the case, have freely drunk. The 
same verb is used by the LXX. in 
Gen. 43 : 34, rendered very properly 
by our translators, were merry. So in 
Cant. 5:1, the same verb is used, which 
in our English version is drink abun- 
dantly. What the governor here says, 
is not to be referre«o the guests who 
were then present, out to a general 
fact. The sense of taste as one ap- 
proaches the state of drunkenness 
becomes blunted, and fails to discrim- 
inate accurately between good and bad 
wine. Alford well remarks : "We may 
be sure that the Lord would not 
have sanctioned, nor ministered to ac- 
tual drunkenness. Only those who can 
conceive this, will find any difficulty 
here ; and they will find difficulty every- 
where." The word worse, literally sig- 
nifies less, and then minor, inferior, 
worse. 

1 1 . This beginning of miracles ; liter- 
ally, this the beginning (i. e. the first) 
of his miracles. This cuts off all those 
apocryphal miracles, which in some of 
the spurious gospels, he was said to 
have wrought, even in his infancy. 
Miracles; literally, signs, referring to 
the tokens or proofs, which miracles 
furnished of the divine mission of 
Jesus. The word is commonly used by 
John in this sense. See N. on Matt. 
12 : 38. And manifested forth (i. c. 



er, and * his brethren, and his dis- 
ciples ; and they continued there 
not many days. 

13 l And the Jews' passover was 
at hand, and Jesus went up to 
Jerusalem, 

*Ex. 12:14; De. 16:1,16; ver. 23; ch. 5:1; 
& 6 : 4 ; & 11 : 55. 

made an open display of ) his glory by 
the performance of this great miracle. 
The glory here referred to, is that 
spoken of in 1 : 14. Such a miracle as 
the one here recorded, evinced super- 
human power, and substantiated his 
claim as being the only begotten of the 
Father. Believed on him, i.e. their faith 
in his Messiahship was confirmed by 
this miracle. 

12. Went down. Capernaum was 
situated on the lake shore, while Cana 
was higher up in the country. His 
brethren. See N". on Matt. 13 : 55. 
They had been invited also to the mar- 
riage-feast. The family ties were not 
yet so fully sundered, as when Jesus 
advanced still further in his public min- 
istry. See Matt. 12 : 48, 49; Mark 

3 : 33, 34 ; Luke 8 : 21. His disciples. 
They followed him to Capernaum, al- 
though, as has been stated (N. on Matt. 

4 : 18), they did not wholly give up 
their secular avocations, until some time 
afterward. Not many days, i. e. a very 
short space of time. " This is less a 
mere chronological design, than one to 
show that he lost no time after his first 
miracle, in publicly manifesting Him- 
self as the Son of God." Alford. 

IS — 35. Jesus attending the Pass- 
over DRIVES THE TRADERS FROM THE 

Temple. Jerusalem. 

13. TJie Jews' passover. Such ex- 
pressions show that John was writing 
his gospel for those who lived at a dis- 
tance from Palestine, and were compar- 
atively ignorant of Jewish customs and 
observances. John speaks of three 
Passovers as occurring during our 
Lord's ministry, one here ; another in 
6:4; and a third in 11:55. The 
feast mentioned in 5 : 1, was probably 
also the passover. Was at hand. This 
is the reason, doubtless, why he staid 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER II. 



35 



14 * And found in the temple 
those that sold oxen and sheep 
and doves, and the changers of 
money sitting : 

15 And when he had made a 
scourge of small cords, he drove 
them all out of the temple, and 

Jc Mt. 21 : 12 ; Ma. 11 : 15 ; Lu. 19 : 45. 

not many days at Capernaum (v. 12). 
Went up, &c. See N. on Matt. 20 : 17. 
14. Found in the temple (i. e. in the 
outward court of the Gentiles. See N. 
on Matt. 21 : 12) those that sold oxen, 
&c. This purification of the temple was 
repeated during the passion week ( see 
Matt. 21 : 12, 13). Oxen is here used 
for any animals of the beeve kind. 
These with the sheep and doves, w r ere 
sold to the worshippers, who coming 
from a distance were obliged to pur- 
chase the animals to be offered in sacri- 
fice. It will readily be imagined what 
noise and confusion, would attend this 
sale of animals, not to speak of the 
chafings and disputes resulting from 
the fierce competition, which of neces- 
sity must have characterized this sacri- 
legious traffic. The number of animals 
offered in sacrifice was immense. 
Josephus says that Cestius, who was 
desirous of informing Nero of the 
strength of the city, devised a plan 
with the chief priests to take the num- 
ber of the whole multitude. This was 
done by ascertaining the number of 
lambs slain in sacrifice, which was 
found to be 256,500, and allowing the 
average number of ten persons for the 
company which partook of one paschal 
lamb, it would make the number ga- 
thered together at Jerusalem on that 
occasion, to have been two and a half 
millions (see Jewish Wars, VI. 9 § 3). 
If to these lambs, the sheep, oxen, 
doves, &c. be added, it will be seen 
what a mass of animals were here 
collected, and what a profanation it 
must have been to the order, stillness, 
and decorum, which should have char- 
acterized the temple worship. Such a 
traffic must have been subject to great 
abuses, and rendered the precincts of 



the sheep, and the oxen ; and 
poured out the changers' money, 
and overthrew the tables ; 

1G And said unto them that 
sold doves, Take these things 
hence ; make not l my Father's 
house a house of merchandise. 
I Lu. 2 : 49. 

the temple, a great mart of merchan- 
dise. Changers of money. See N. on 
Matt. 21 : 12 (end). Sitting refers to 
the money-changers, who sat by their 
tables, to exchange foreign coin into 
Jewish. It refers also to those who 
sold animals, in the slightly varied sense 
of having taken their stand in the 
temple. 

15.-4 scourge of small cords, or of 
rush cords. These rushes from which 
Jesus twisted his whip, were used both 
for litters and for tying up the cattle. 
It is quite unlikely that our Lord used 
this whip, except as a symbol of his 
authority, since if the traders had been 
disposed to make resistance, a small 
whip in the hand of a single person, 
would not have availed to drive them 
out. But conscious of the unlawful- 
ness of their traffic within the precincts 
of the temple, and awed by his digni- 
fied manner, they made no resistance 
to his authority, but suffered their busi- 
ness to be wholly broken up. Traders 
and animals were all driven out togeth- 
er ; the money which lay in heaps of 
small coin to be exchanged for the 
larger foreign coins, in order to pay the 
half shekel temple-tax (see N. on Matt. 
21 : 12), was scattered upon the ground, 
and the tables overturned. Our Lord 
by this cleansing of the temple avowed 
his Messiahship, and fulfilled the pro- 
phecy in Mai. 3 : 1-3. 

16. These things refers grammati- 
cally to the doves. Stier says that by 
design, he here softens his utterance, 
and passes, after sparing the doves 
(in which He sees not mere sacrifices, 
as in the sheep and oxen, but also the 
symbol of the Holy Ghost), to that 
word which illustrates and explains the 
deed, make not my Father's house a 



36 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



17 And his disciples remember- 
ed that it was written, m The zeal 
of thine house hath eaten me up. 

18 Then answered the Jews 
and said unto him, n What sign 

on Ps. 69 : 9. 
n Mat. 12 : 28 ; ch. 6 : 30. 

place of merchandise. The tense of 
make requires the rendering be not 
making, continue not to make, the re- 
ference being had to an action com- 
menced and still going on. My Father's 
in the high sense referred to in 1 : 14, 
18. Alford points out the coincidence 
between this and Luke 2 : 49. There 
can be no doubt but that our Lord, in 
using this form of expression, intended 
in the very outset of his ministry to 
appropriate to himself a relationship 
with God, which could be assumed by 
no mortal man or created being. 

17. His disciples. See K on v. 2. 
Remembered not' in subsequent time, 
but on that very occasion. His 
conduct and language brought forcibly 
to their mind, the inspired words of 
Ps. 69 : 9. Zeal of thy house, i. e. zeal 
for the honor of God's house. Hath 
eaten me up. The reference in the ori- 
ginal is unquestionably to the grief, 
with which the Messiah was propheti- 
cally declared to be consumed, through 
his zeal for the honor of the house of 
God. Thus it harmonizes with the 
parallel sentiment in the next clause, 
" and the reproaches of them that re- 
proached thee are fallen upon me." 
But here it refers not so much to grief, 
as to a holy indignation, which our 
Lord felt at the profanation of the 
temple. The general sentiment is, that 
the zeal of the Lord had taken such 
entire possession of the Saviour, that his 
indignation so burned as almost to con- 
sume him. By a somewhat similar 
metaphor, we say of a man, who is 
very much devoted to any object or 
pursuit, that he is eaten up with it. 
Some expositors find this meaning, that 
his zeal had well nigh consumed him, 
because in cleansing the temple, he had 
exposed himself to great personal peril. 
But this is less apposite and natural. 



shewest thou unto us, seeing that 
thou doest these things ? 

19 Jesus answered and said un- 
to them, ° Destroy this temple, 
and in three days I will raise it 
up. 

oMat. 26: Gl; & 27; 40; Ma. 14:58; &15:29. 

There was not even a show of resist- 
ance on the part of these men, and if' 
there had been, so potent were our 
Lord's presence and reproving words, 
that it immediately ceased, and the dis- 
ciples thought only of the fervid zeal, 
with which he expelled these polluters 
of the sacred house of God. 

18. The Jews in amazement at this 
assumption of authority on the part of 
Jesus, an obscure Galilean, and the sub- 
missive obedience of these rough and 
irreligious men, whom single handed he 
had driven forth from the precincts of 
the temple, demanded his credentials 
for the office of public reformer which 
he had thus taken upon himself. Their 
demand for a miraculous attestation to 
his authority, may also have been at- 
tributable in part, to the remarkable 
words my Fathers house, which they 
very properly regarded as a virtual 
claim to the Messiahship. A similar de- 
mand was made by them upon him in 
Matt. 21 : 23. What sign (see N. on v. 
11), in proof of your commission to act 
thus as a public reformer. The Jews — 
by which term John refers to the priests 
and rulers — did not justify the profana- 
tion of the temple by these traders, nor 
find fault with the act of expulsion by 
which the sacred place had been 
relieved of their desecrating presence ; 
but were piqued that he should assume 
an authority, which, as the constituted 
guardians of the temple, belonged 
rightfully to them. They do not there- 
fore blame him for what he had done, 
but as their question implies, for as- 
suming functions that were not his. 
Seeing that (or in that, forasmuch as) 
thou doest these things, as though di- 
vinely commissioned. 

19. The time was not come for an 
open declaration of our Lord's mission 
and character. His reply was there- 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER II. 



37 



20 Then said the Jews, Forty 
and six years was this temple in 

fore couched in mysterious terms, which 
■were afterwards sought to be used to 
his disadvantage, when examined in 
the palace of the high priest. The in- 
cident is here recorded by John, which 
was only referred to by Matthew 
and Mark, in their account of his trial 
and condemnation. It is thus that a 
comparison of the gospels enables the 
reader to obtain a complete and circum- 
stantial view of the whole life of Jesus, 
so far at least as all the essential facts 
of his ministry are concerned. Destroy 
this temple, &c. The construction may 
be resolved thus : if ye destroy this 
temple, in three days I will raise it up. 
The imperative has here its usual hor- 
tatory sense, and is a much stronger 
expression of confidence in the result, 
than though the conditional form if 
ye destroy, &c. had been adopted. Our 
Lord has been charged by the enemies 
of truth, as here prevaricating or using 
equivocation. But it is evident that 
the disciples understood him as re- 
ferring to his own body ; for when he 
was risen they called to mind what he 
had said. It is also evident that the 
Jews understood him rightly ; for when 
he was arraigned, the witnesses, who 
swore that he said he would destroy 
the temple and within three days build 
it again, were called false witnesses 
(Matt. 26 : 60 ; Mark 14 : 57), and were 
most unquestionably suborned. They 
were guilty of double perjury in mis- 
stating his language, and also in re- 
ferring his words to the literal temple, 
which perversion from the truth they 
endeavored to make still stronger by 
adding " that is made with hands," 
words which he never uttered (see Mark 
14 : 58). His words were dark and ob- 
scure, not by any means as to what 
they referred, whether to himself or 
the temple in which he stood, but from 
the fact of their reference to his own 
death and resurrection, which even 
when plainly foretold, his disciples 
were slow to understand (Mark 9 : 32 ; 
Luke 9 : 45) ; but the Jews wilfully 
misunderstood him, or their excess of 



building, and wilt thon rear it up 
in three days ? 

rage might have prevented them from 
properly understanding what he said. 
We may infer that Jesus used some 
gesture, or in some other way gave in- 
timation that he alluded to his own 
body. Alford approves of Stier's re- 
mark, that our Lord in this saying 
comprehended in the reality His own 
Body, its type and symbol, the tem- 
ple, then being before them. This is 
true, but Stier seems to be at variance 
with himself in saying, "that it is 
equally certain, on the other hand, 
that the Lord must have spoken of 
that temple, of that desecrated house 
of his Father, about which the question 
then was." Our Lord's language was 
undoubtedly borrowed from the theme 
of thought and conversation, the 
temple, but did not in any sense what- 
ever refer to the demolition and re- 
building of that sacred edifice. His 
words had primary and sole reference 
to his own body. His life was hence- 
forth to be in constant jeopardy, and 
his remark seems to have been based 
on the murderous designs, which were 
already forming against him by the 
Jewish rulers. 

20. Forty and six years, &c. There 
is some difficulty in reaching the exact 
number of years, in which the temple 
is here said to have been in building. 
Josephus (Antiq. XV. 11 § 1) says that 
it was begun in the eighteenth year of 
Herod's reign ; but in his Jewish Wars 
(I. 21 § 1) he dates its commencement 
in the fifteenth year of his reign. In 
the former case, he dates Herod's reign 
from the death of Antigonus ; in the lat- 
ter, from his appointment as king by 
the Romans. Making this latter date 
the basis of calculation, we have twenty 
years to the birth of Christ ; to which 
add thirty years, the age of our Lord, 
and we have fifty years. From this 
take four years, as our era is four years 
too late, and it leaves a period of ex- 
actly forty-six years. This is Alford's 
mode of explanation, and is more satis- 
factory than that of Webster and Wil- 
kinson, who compute from the eigh- 



38 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



21 But lie spake p of the temple 
of his body. 

22 When therefore he was risen 
from the dead, q his disciples re- 
membered that he had said this 
unto them ; and they believed the 

p Col. 2:9; He. 8:2; So 1 Co. 3:16; &6:19; 
2 Co. 6:16. 



teenth year of Herod's reign, and leave- 
out of the calculation the difference of 
four years above referred to. Wilt 
thou rear it up ? i. e. build it, a sense 
which the verb here takes from its cor- 
respondence to was building, in the pre- 
ceding clause. 

21. But he spake of the temple of his 
body. The words of his body, are in 
explanatory apposition with temple, 
showing that he referred to his own 
body, under the figurative expression of 
the temple. In a certain sense, his 
body, as that in which was enshrined, 
not only his human, but also his divine 
nature, was a temple far more glorious, 
than that which stood on Mount Moriah 
in its most palmy days of splendor. In a 
similar but far inferior sense, our bodies 
are also declared to be the temple of 
the Holy Ghost. See 1 Cor. 3:16:6: 
19; 2 Cor. 6 : 16. 

22. Our Lord's resurrection brought 
this observation to mind, and the disci- 
ples then understood its full import. 
Thus it was doubtless with many other 
incidents of his history, and remarks 
which fell from his lips. They were 
obscure at the time, but when ponder- 
ed upon, in the light which was shed 
upon his life by the effusion of the 
promised Spirit, became clear and 
striking. Tlie Scripture. This word as 
used in the New Testament, refers to 
the Old Testament writings. As our 
Lord's resurrection from the dead is 
made the subject of no distinct proph- 
ecy of the Old Testament, reference 
must be had to the tenor of prophecy, 
which, under the teachings of the Holy 
Ghost, the apostles were enabled to 
rightly interpret, and apply to the 
great fact of the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ. Such passages as Ps. 16 : 10; 



Scripture, and the word which 
Jesus had said. 

23 1" Now when he was in Je- 
rusalem at the passover, in the 



feast 



many believed in his 



name, when they saw the miracles 
which he did. 

q La. 24:8. 



Hos. 6 : 2: may serve as an illustration 
of this point. See 1ST. on 20 : 9. And 
the word, &c. This refers not only to 
what was said in v. 19 (see N. on 
Matt. 21 : 40), but to all the predictions 
of our Lord in regard to his resur- 
rection. 

23. " This verse should begin a new 
chapter, being introductory to the ac- 
count of Nicodemus." Webster and 
Wilkinson. But vs. 23-25 are mani- 
festly as independent of the following, 
as of the preceding context. They 
are, in a measure, parenthetical, being 
designed to show that, while many be- 
lieved in Jesus because of his miracles, 
their faith was not so well grounded as 
to warrant his fully confiding in them, 
knowing as he did the hearts of all 
men. At the passover in the feast day 
is equivalent to the feast of the pass- 
over, in contradistinction to the general 
season of the feast. In such a con- 
nection the word passover, is the more 
general, and feast, the more special 
designation of time. So Webster and 
Wilkinson refer it to the actual feast 
days ; " during the continuance of the 
feast." Many believed, &c. That true 
believers are not here referred to, ap- 
pears clearly from the next verse. 
Reference is had rather to the general 
impression favorable to our Lord's 
Messiahship, produced upon the people 
by the miracles which he wrought 
They were compelled, in view of the 
overwhelming testimony furnished by 
his wonderful works, to acknowledge 
the truth of his claims, but did not 
yield their hearts in obedience and love. 
When they saw, &c. It would seem 
from this that many miracles, not re- 
corded by the Evangelists, were per- 
formed by Jesus at the time of this 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER III. 



39 



24 But Jesus did not commit 
himself unto them, because he 
knew all men, 

25 And needed not that any 
should testify of man ; for r he 
knew what was in man. 



passover. See 4 : 45 ; 6 : 2. Our Lord, 
in his discourses with the Jews at Jeru- 
salem, often appealed to his works as 
furnishing testimony of his Messiah- 
ship (see 5:20, 36; 7:31; 10:25, 
38). We have only two recorded 
miracles of our Lord at Jerusalem, the 
one wrought upon the diseased man who 
lay at the pool of Bethesda (5 : 5-9) ; 
and the other upon the man who was 
born blind (9 : 1-7). But from this 
passage, and inferentially from the 
others above cited, we see that our 
Lord wrought many miracles in the 
metropolis of the nation, which are 
passed over in silence by the Evangel- 
ists. A reason for this may have been 
to avoid the appearance of magnifj'ing 
his miracles performed at Jerusalem, 
as though any additional importance 
was given them by having been wrought 
there. The two miracles above re- 
ferred to, seem to have been recorded 
principally, if not solely, on the ground 
that they were the occasion of two 
great discourses of our Lord. In this, 
as in all our Lord's ministry, we see a 
verification of the fact, that his mission 
was to the poor and humble, rather 
than to the rich and haughty ; and 
that the Spirit of inspiration took more 
delight, so to speak, in bringing to the 
notice of men, his miracles wrought in 
the towns of Galilee than in the me- 
tropolis of the Jewish nation. 

24, 25. Did not commit himself, i. e. 
did not trust his person to them, nor 
confide in them as his true followers. 
The pronoun in the original, imparts an 
antithetic sense : but Jesus for his part 
did not trust himself to them. The rea- 
son is given in the next clause, because 
he Tcnew all men, i. e. knew their secret 
purpose, and the prevailing disposition 
of their heart. This is a strong proof- 
text of our Lord's divinity. Omniscience 
is here ascribed to him in the plainest 



CHAPTER III. 

T.HEEE was a man of the 
Pharisees, named Nicodemus, 
a ruler of the Jews : 

r 1 Sa. 16 : 7 ; 1 Co. 28 : 9 ; Mt. 9:4; Ma. 2 : 8 ; 
ch. 6:64; & 16:30; Ac. 1:24; Re. 2:23. 



and directest terms. This attribute is 
often adduced in the Old Testament, in 
proof that Jehovah alone is God. See 
Isa. 40 : 14 ; Ps. 139 : 1-12. And need- 
ed not, &c. This and the following 
clause are added to confirm and illus- 
trate the assertion of our Lord's om- 
niscience ; and the whole passage is cor- 
roborative of the declaration made in 
1:1, that the Word was God. The 
repetition is not unlike that in 1 : 20. 
The use of the singular, mail and in 
man, is more emphatic than the plural 
form, it being generic, and therefore 
including all mankind. This generic 
sense is strongly marked in the original, 
by the accompanying article. The words 
what teas in man, show in what sense 
the assertion he Jcneio all, in the first 
clause, is to be taken. Reference is 
had to absolute knowledge of what lies 
in the heart of man, and is concealed 
from the human eye. It should be 
noted that our Lord is referred to, as 
having that knowledge in himself, and 
not receiving it from the Father. This 
idea is fully developed in the second 
clause, and needed not that any (i. e. any 
being created or divine) shoidd testify 
of man, i. e. communicate to him what 
was passing in the mind of man. Lan- 
guage could not be selected to declare 
more distinctly and emphatically his 
divine and universal knowledge. The 
gospel of John abounds in proofs and 
illustrations of this great and cardinal 
doctrine of our Lord's omniscience. 

CHAPTER III. 

1-21. Our Lord's discourse with 
Nicodemus. Jerusalem. Perhaps there 
is to be found in the New Testament 
no passage of more fundamental impor- 
tance and interest to us as moral and 
accountable beings, than this discourse 
of our Lord with Nicodemus. The 
spiritual nature of Christianity, and the 



40 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



necessity of regeneration, as a pre- 
requisite to its privileges and rewards, 
are brought out with a directness and 
force, that no ingenuity of argument or 
sophistry has been able in the slightest 
degree to weaken or evade. Our Lord 
shows himself on this occasion to be 
the great Moral Teacher, sent into the 
world to enlighten it, and reveal the 
ways of God to men. The disclosures 
here made to Nicodemus were infinitely 
above the devices of human wisdom, and 
yet were expressed in such clear and 
simple terms, that the most untutored in- 
tellect finds no difficulty in grasping the 
great idea of the new birth, and applying 
it to his fallen and helpless condition by 
nature. The declaration, "except a 
man be born again, he cannot see the 
kingdom of God," with its brief and 
emphatic repetition, " ye must be born 
again," has been received in all its 
depth and power by thousands and 
thousands, to whom many other pas- 
sages of God's word are comparatively 
dark and obscure, from the dimness of 
their intellectual vision. This great 
central doctrine of the new birth has 
been to them a living reality, the power 
of which they have felt in their own 
experience, and on the basis of which 
they have reposed in all confidence, 
their hope of a blissful immortality be- 
yond the grave. 

1. Tliere was a man, &c. The original 
is so connected with the preceding con- 
text by a continuative particle, which 
does not appear in the English transla- 
tion, that there can be but little doubt 
that Xicodemus belonged to the class 
of persons referred to in 2 : 23. That 
he was however a person of such prompt, 
decided, reflective habits, that he could 
not long occupy a neutral ground be- 
tween a full and saving belief in Christ, 
and open unbelief, this visit of inquiry 
to our Lord furnishes ample testimony. 
A man of the Pharisees, i. e. who be- 
longed to the sect of the Pharisees. 
Nicodcmus is composed of two Greek 
words signifying the victory of the peo- 
ple. " Greek names had become com- 
mon among the Jews, in consequence 
of the subjugation of Syria and Egypt 
to Greek authority under the successors 



of Alexander." Webster and "Wilkin- 
son. Nicodemus is referred to again in 
V : 50 ; 19 : 39. It appears from a com- 
parison of these passages with the one 
before us, that he was a member of the 
Sanhedrim, and became a sincere al- 
though timid disciple of Christ. He 
came, however, to Jesus at this time, 
not as a professed disciple, but an in- 
quirer after truth. His discipleship was 
doubtless the result of the plain and 
faithful instructions, which he received 
at this time from the lips of Jesus. If 
he is the same person referred to by 
this name in the Rabbinical writings, 
he was a man in high repute for his 
learning, wealth, liberality, and strict 
conformity to the Jewish law. As it 
regards his motive in coming to Jesus, 
he had probably seen his miracles, and 
become well-nigh convinced of the 
correctness of his claims to the Mes- 
siahship. But when he took into con- 
sideration the humble origin and rank 
of Jesus, and the obscure and disrepu- 
table town in Galilee in which he had 
been brought up, his mind was troubled 
and perplexed in regard to the subject. 
He determined to have all doubt re- 
moved by a personal interview, and 
with that intent he came to Jesus by 
night, in order that his character might 
not be compromised in the estimation 
of the Jews. « 

If we keep this character of Nico- 
demus in view, and the purpose for 
which he sought an interview with our 
Lord, it will greatly help us to under- 
stand the drift of the conversation 
which took place. On the one hand 
was a rich, learned, influential member 
of the highest court in the Jewish na- 
tion, fluctuating between apparently 
conflicting evidence in regard to the 
character of the man whom he came 
to visit, and whose wonderful works 
seemed to fully point him out as the 
Hope of Israel, the long expected Mes- 
siah, but whose lowness of birth and 
social position seemed to interpose an 
insuperable objection to his claims. He 
had come to Jesus in the shades of 
night, resolved on plying him with 
questions, until he' should come to a 
satisfactory conclusion in regard to his 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER III. 



41 



2 a The same caine to Jesus by 
night, and said unto him, Rabbi, 
we know that thou art a teacher 



a Ch. 7 : 50 ; & 19 : 39. 



true character. Oil the other hand was 
One who kuew all that was in the heart 
of Nicodemus (see 2 : 25), his hopes, his 
doubts, his imperfect views of the true 
nature of the Messiah's kingdom, and 
the points on which he needed special 
instruction. This will account for the 
apparent abruptness of our Lord's re- 
ply to the complimentary salutation of 
his visitor. lie laid down a great 
truth, which, if properly received and 
carried out to its legitimate conse- 
quences, would prove, beyond the pos- 
sibility of doubt, that the moral reno- 
vation spoken of, which, from the very 
nature of the imagery made use of, 
was beyond the reach of man to effect 
for himself, demanded not a temporal 
but a spiritual Deliverer, an Almighty 
Redeemer, just such a one as in the 
process of the argument (vs. 14-18), 
God is declared to have sent into the 
world, in the person of his only-begot- 
ten Son. If we keep in view this ob- 
ject of Nicodemus in visiting Jesus, 
and the great point which our Lord de- 
signed to bring out in his reply, the 
particular parts of the conversation 
will be easy of interpretation. 

2. By night, in order to avoid public 
observation. Some think that he chose 
the night time, in order to secure a 
more uninterrupted interview with Je- 
sus than could have been enjoyed dur- 
ing the hour of day. But the promi- 
nent reference made to this feature of 
his visit to Jesus in 1 : 50 (on which 
see Note), seems clearly to refer to his 
fear of compromising himself in the 
estimation of the Jews, as he would have 
done, by openly approaching Jesus to 
inquire into his true character and 
mission. Rabbi, ice Jcnoic, &c. This 
address must not be regarded as sim- 
ply complimentary ; much less that it 
was only a pretended respect of Nico- 
demus for the character of Jesus as a 
teacher of religion. The solemn and 
important nature of his errand forbade 



come from God : for h no man can 
do these miracles that thou doest, 
except c God be with him. 

o Ch. 9 : 16, 33 ; Ac. 2 : 22. c Ac. 10 : 3S. 



all empty compliments ; nor would he 
have come to Jesus to receive instruc- 
tion or have his doubts solved, unless 
he had entertained all the respect for 
his character which these words indi- 
cate. As to the question how John 
the Evangelist became acquainted with 
this conversation, so as to narrate it, 
for any thing we know to the contrary, 
he may have been present on this oc- 
casion ; or our Lord may have related 
to him the circumstances of this inter- 
view. When men are proved to have 
written under a full and promised 
measure of divine inspiration, it were 
worse than useless to suffer the mind to 
become perplexed, as to the particular 
means by which they became acquaint- 
ed with any given event. "We are as- 
sured that the thing took place as here 
narrated, and that is all with which we 
are especially concerned. 

Wc know. I caDnot agree with Al- 
ford that Nicodemus uses the plural as 
" expressive of the true conviction re- 
specting Jesus, of that class to which 
he belonged (viz. the rulers) ; " and that 
evidence is thus furnished that they 
crucified Jesus, knowing that he was 
what he professed to be (see N. on 
Luke 23 : 84). The more natural solu- 
tion is that Nicodemus wished to shel- 
ter his own personal convictions under 
the more general form of the plural, 
but not for the reason which Stier 
gives, that he might be able to draw 
back again, if necessary, but rather 
from a modest withholding of his own 
individual sentiments. He would not 
presume to come on his own personal 
responsibility, but rather in the name 
of others who, like himself, were in- 
quirers after truth. In estimating the 
purpose of Nicodemus in this visit to 
have been honest and ingenuous, we do 
not lose sight of the fact, that he be- 
came a real and devoted disciple of 
Jesus, and manifested his courage and 
devotion to his master, at a time when 



42 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



3 Jesus answered and said unto 
him, Verily, verily, I say unto 

dCh. 1:18; Ga. 6:15; Tit. 3:5; Ja. 1:18; 1 
Pe. 1 : 23 ; 1 Jo. 3 ; 9. 

it required no ordinary courage to avow 
an attachment to him, or to bestow 
even upon his dead body the customa- 
ry funeral rites (see 19 : 39). A teacher 
come from God, i. e. a divinely com- 
missioned teacher. This might be 
true of Jesus, and yet he might not be 
the Messiah. It was to remove this 
doubt, as to whether he was any thing 
more than a divinely appointed teacher, 
that Nicodemus came to Jesus. For 
no man, &c. He reasoned correctly 
that the miracles wrought by Jesus at- 
tested his divine commission. Our 
Lord himself often referred to his 
works, in proof of his being sent from 
God. See 10: 25,37, 38; 14: 11; 15: 
24. Except God be with him. Nico- 
demus had not attained to the simple 
and sublime faith of Nathanael (1 : 49), 
yet he admitted the evidence furnished 
by our Lord's works, that he was an 
extraordinary person upon whom rest- 
ed the divine favor. 

3. The reply of Jesus, as has been 
remarked (N. on v. 1), although appa- 
rently abrupt and disconnected, con- 
tains the direct answer to what was 
probably the sole object of Nicodemus 
in visiting him — the solving of his 
doubts in regard to our Lord's Messiah- 
ship. The radical moral change, here 
styled a new birth, declared to be ne- 
cessary to a participation in the Mes- 
sianic kingdom, showed the spirituality 
of that kingdom, and disabused the 
mind of Nicodemus of his false notions 
in regard to the Messiah. The senti- 
ment is not unlike the opening verses 
of the Sermon on the Mount, where 
the blessings of Christ's kingdom are 
promised to those only who are spirit- 
ually poor, meek, humble, thirsting 
after righteousness. This at once de- 
stroyed all hope or expectation of 
temporal power and aggrandizement 
from the advent of the Messiah, and 
disclosed to Nicodemus his true char- 
acter as a spiritual deliverer, whose 
mission it was to effect an entire 



thee, d Except a man be born 
again, he cannot see the kingdom 
of God. 



change of heart and life, and thus re- 
store men to the favor of God, which 
they had forfeited by sin. If the mind 
of the Jewish ruler became fully im- 
pressed with the true nature and object 
of Christ's mission, it would matter 
little whether Jesus were a native of 
Galilee or Jerusalem, whether his so- 
cial position were low or exalted, pro- 
vided he possessed those marks of the 
Messiahship, which this spiritual insight 
into his true character enabled one to 
discern. Verily, verily. This repeti- 
tion, designed to give emphasis to the 
truth about to be spoken, is often 
found in John, but not in the other 
Evangelists. Unto thee. Nicodemus 
had employed the plural we know : but 
our Lord directs his reply especially to 
him, thus individualizing him, and 
bringing him into personal contact 
with the truth about to be communi- 
cated to him. 

Except a man be born again. The 
word rendered again, literally signifies 
from- above, and commentators from the 
early ages of the church down to the 
present time, have been divided as to 
which of these meanings it should 
here take. The word is employ- 
ed in another connection in v. 31, 
where its manifest sense is from above, 
and I can see no valid reason against 
affixing to it that sense in the present 
passage. From above signifies from 
God, and is synonymous with born of 
the Spirit in vs. 5, 8. It is opposed to 
the carnal birth referred to in v. 6, by 
the words born of the flesh. Hence 
this new heavenly birth is spoken of 
by Nicodemus (v. 4), as a second birth, 
which doubtless suggested to interpret- 
ers the translation again, found in our 
English version. Against the transla- 
tion from above, it is urged that Nico- 
demus would hardly have used the lan- 
guage he did in v. 4, had the more ob- 
vious and natural signification been 
other than a new or second birth of a 
physical nature. But may we not sup- 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER III. 



43 



4 Nicodernus saith unto him, 
How can a man be born when he 
is old ? can he enter the second 



pose that he purposely understood it in 
the sense of a physical birth, in order 
to press upon Jesus the absurdity of 
such a requirement, as a prerequisite 
for entering the kingdom of heaven? 
May not this have been the purport of 
the reply, ' Can a man be born from 
above when he is old and his habits 
are all confirmed ? It is as incredible 
as that a man can enter the second 
time into his mother's womb and be 
born.' "We have hardly a doubt that 
Nicodernus rightly understood Jesus, 
as speaking of a radical moral change, 
and that his reply in v. 4, did not pro- 
ceed from a misapprehension of our 
Lord's words, so much as from a dispo- 
sition to quibble and parry off the 
force of the truth, which had reached 
his conscience, and shown his present 
unfitness to participate in the blessings 
of the Messiah's reign. To suppose 
him to have seriously imagined that 
our Lord referred to a second natural 
birth, would be to attribute to him a 
want of understanding or a dulness of 
comprehension, wholly unsuited to his 
character and station. As it regards 
the expressions new birth, regeneration, 
and being bom again, they are the le- 
gitimate outgrowth of this passage. 
Whether we translate the phrase bom 
again, or born from above, it denotes a 
new and second birth, as truly the 
commencement of a new moral life, as 
the natural birth of man is the begin- 
ning of his physical existence. 

4. The explanation of this verse has 
been anticipated in v. 3. Suffice it to 
say, that the reply of Nicodernus must 
not be taken, as some think, in a mor- 
al but a physical sense. He purposely 
seized upon the physical impossibility 
of a second natural birth, to press our 
Lord with an insuperable difficulty, and 
thus to soften the terms of his proposi- 
tion, that a man must be born from 
above — which is virtually the same as 
the being born again, — in order to par- 
ticipate in the Messianic blessings, or 
cause him to withdraw it altogether. 



time into his mother's womb, and 
be born ? 



This, as I have remarked, does not im- 
ply that Nicodernus really misunder- 
stood our Lord's true spiritual mean- 
ing, but that he affected ignorance, and 
based his reply on a gross conception 
of a new physical birth. But at the 
same time that he did not misappre- 
hend the general truth, which was here 
couched under the figurative language 
of a new birth or a birth from above, 
he was in great ignorance as to the na- 
ture of moral regeneration, and pos- 
sessed of still greater unbelief of its ne- 
cessity, especially in a person of such 
unimpeachable morals as himself. Dr. 
Jacobus remarks that the general idea 
of a new birth was already in use, as 
proselytes were spoken of as new bom, 
when they came into the Jewish 
church by baptism. Nicodernus sup- 
posing that our Lord used the term in 
this sense, could not see how it should 
be made a prerequisite to a Jew for 
entering the Messiah's kingdom. It 
seemed to him just as absurd, as to 
think of a man when he is old, enter- 
ing again into his mother's womb and 
being born. This furnishes a good ex- 
planation of the passage, and is not in- 
consistent with the exposition which I 
have given. Both interpretations make 
Nicodernus to understand our Lord's 
words, as referring to some great 
change which every man must undergo, 
so that in a sense, he shall become a 
new man, before he can • ttain to the 
blessings of the Messiah's kingdom. 
The only question is whether his reply 
is one, in which he pretends to under- 
stand our Lord as referring to a new 
physical birth ; or asserts that it were 
as reasonable for a man advanced in 
life to be subject to a second physical 
birth, as to expect that a Jew would 
require such a moral change, as our 
Lord hinted at. The latter view gives 
a good and appropriate sense, yet I 
cannot but think that the reply of Nico- 
dernus is one, in which he purposely 
misunderstands our Lord's great mean- 
ing, and refers his words to an actual 



44 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, 
I say unto thee, e Except a man 
be born of water and of the Spirit, 

physical birth, in order to draw him 
out more fully, or show that he had af- 
fixed terms of admission to the Messi- 
anic kingdom, which seemed to border 
on what was unnecessary, if not ab- 
surd, when applied to the Jews, God's 
chosen, covenant people. When he is 
old. It is quite probable that Nicode- 
mus was himself somewhat advanced in 
age at this time, which circumstance 
would give more point to his exclama- 
tion of astonishment. 

5. Oar Lord takes no notice of this 
quibbling objection of Nicodemus, but 
proceeds to restate his first proposition 
in such definite and unmistakeable lan- 
guage, that his visitor had no power to 
escape its force, but was compelled to 
exclaim in amazement and unconcealed 
ignorance of the great subject revealed 
to him : ' How can these things be (v. 
9) ? ' Verily, verily. This verse being 
a reaffirmation of the truth contained 
in v. 3, is introduced by the same em- 
phatic adverbs. Of loater and of the 
Spirit is explanatory of the word again, 
in v. 3. Calvin takes the phrase of 
water, in an adjective sense with the 
words of the Spirit, making it signifi- 
cant of the purifying influence of the 
Spirit. But Avhile this sense is both 
true and apposite, referred simply to 
the operations of the Spirit, yet when 
this passage is compared with Matt. 3 : 
11 ; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16, where bap- 
tism with water is joined with the bap- 
tism of the Spirit ; and also with Mark 
16 : 16, where baptism is connected with 
faith in Christ as a prerequisite to sal- 
vation, I cannot think that Calvin's 
view is tenable. The sense demanded 
by these and other parallel passages, 
seems to be that which lies on the very 
face of the text, except a man be born 
of water (i. e. except he receive the rite 
of Christian baptism) and of the Spirit 
(i. c. except he receive the baptism of 
the Spirit) he cannot enter, &c. It may 
be objected to this interpretation, that 
it seems to make baptism a saving or- 



he connot enter into the kingdom 
of God. 



e Ma. 16: 16: Ac. 2: 



dinance. But not so. It is expressly 
affirmed that there must also be a bap- 
tism of the Spirit, or there can be no 
admission into the kingdom of God. 
The terms are in harmony with the 
great promise annexed to the procla- 
mation of the gospel, " he that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved " (Mark 
16: 16), where it is clear that baptism 
is of no saving efficacy, unless accom- 
panied by a living faith in Jesus Christ. 
Nor does this interpretation imply that 
one who is born of the Spirit, cannot 
be saved unless he is baptized. There 
are doubtless many instances, where a 
true believer has never received this 
rite, yet this does not invalidate the 
rule of Christ's house, that Christian 
baptism, the outward sign of induction 
to its privileges, is a duty of binding 
obligation, and intimately connected 
with salvation through Christ. The 
phrase born of water, as has been above 
remarked, was used of proselytes, who 
had been publicly inducted into the 
Jewish religion by the ceremony of 
baptism. Hence our Lord may have 
used the phrase in its more generic 
sense, of a public profession of religion, 
in reference to this private visit of Ni- 
codemus ; at the same time annexing 
the essential qualification bom of the 
Spirit, to show that a public profession 
of religion is of no avail, unless the 
soul have been regenerated by the 
Spirit. Alford and Stier refer the 
phrase bom of water, to John's bap- 
tism, which Nicodemus had probably 
slighted (Luke 7 : 30), not however 
limiting it to that baptism, but having 
a life and meaning for all ages of his 
church. But if the primary reference 
is not to Christian baptism but to John's 
baptism, we can hardly see how it can 
be applicable to all subsequent time. 
Cannot enter is varied from cannot see, 
in v. 3, being apparently suggested by 
the words can he enter, just uttered by 
Nicodemus. There is however a slight 
advance in the sentiment, inasmuch as 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER III. 



45 



6 That which is born of the 
flesh is flesh ; and that which is 
born of the Spirit is spirit. 

7 Marvel not that I said unto 
thee, Ye must be born again. 

/Ec. 11:5; 1 Co. 2:11. 



entering precedes seeing, and is there- 
fore in this connection the stronger term. 
" There is no such thing as attaining to 
a knowledge of the kingdom of heaven 
from without, a theoretical acquaint- 
ance with the domain of the Spirit by 
chart without travelling in it; the com- 
ing indeed in a certain sense must pre- 
cede the seeing." Stier. 

6. The connection of this verse with 
the preceding context seems to be this : 
1 The first or natural birth introduces to 
sin and death. Every descendant of 
Adam is by nature " carnal and sold 
under sin (Rom. 1 : 16.)" There is no 
exception to this law that like begets 
like. In the same manner, those born 
of the Spirit have the moral likeness of 
the Spirit. They arc spiritually mind- 
ed, and this gives them life and peace.' 
Thus the necessity of the new birth an- 
nounced by our Lord to Nicodemus, is 
shown by the laws of generation, by 
which a clean thing cannot be brought 
forth from an unclean (Job 14 : 4). 
Alford thus makes out the connection : 
1 If a second natural birth were pos- 
sible, it would not accomplish the birth 
necessary to entrance into the kingdom 
of God.' But this would imply that 
Nicodemus really understood our Lord 
in v. 3, to speak of a natural birth, and 
that the present declaration is a rectifi- 
cation of that ei'ror ; whereas, as has been 
remarked (N. on v. 4), the ruler pur- 
posely misunderstood him for the sake 
of eliciting more fully his meaning, or 
what is more likely, to parry off the 
force of the truth, so sententiously and 
pointedly addressed to him. It is bet- 
ter therefore to make v. 6 indicative of 
the absolute necessity of the new spirit- 
ual birth spoken of. Hence in the 
next verse, which is an inference from 
thif, our Lord bids him to cease won- 
dering at this doctrine of the new birth, 



8 f The wind bloweth where it 
listeth, and thou nearest the sound 
thereof, but canst not tell whence 
it - cometh, and whither it goeth : 
so is every one that is born of the 
Spirit. 

founded as it is upon the necessary laws 
of our spiritual being. That which. 
The neuter is employed in the original, 
as Alford after Bengel asserts, because 
reference is had to the very first be- 
ginnings of life in the embryo, before 
sex can be predicated. But it is bet- 
ter to regard it as the neuter, denot- 
ing a truth of general application. Of 
the flesh is flesh. This refers to man's 
carnal, sinful nature, as opposed to 
the spiritual, which is declared to be 
essential to salvation. The natural or 
physical birth of man is followed in- 
variably and universally, by a carnal 
course of conduct; but the new spirit- 
ual birth introduces to a new and spir- 
itual life. Thus our Lord illustrates 
and confirms the necessity of a radical 
change of heart, in order to a partici- 
pation in the spiritual blessings of 
the Messiah's reign. It is worthy of 
notice that the words of water, are here 
omitted, showing that the rite of bap- 
tism is not essential to the new birth 
here referred to. 

7. The necessity of regeneration hav- 
ing been thus proved and illustrated, 
our Lord tells Nicodemus, not to mar- 
vel at a truth so clear and fundamental. 
The plural ?/e, refers to men as used 
collectively in v. 3. Bom again or 
bom from above. It is a second birth, 
but one heavenly in its origin and 
wholly spiritual. 

8. This verse is connected with the 
preceding, both as a proof and illus- 
tration of what is there affirmed. 
Nicodemus was not to wonder at this 
great truth, because it was above his 
comprehension, for there were many 
things even in the natural world, of 
which he had no knowledge save of the 
facts themselves. This is illustrated by 
man's ignorance of the laws which 
regulate the wind, although one of the 



46 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



9 Nicodemus answered and said 

g Ch. 6 : 52, 60. 

most palpable facts of which the sen'ses 
are cognizant. Bengel following Ori- 
gen and Augustine, interprets the word 
rendered wind, by the Spirit. But in 
that case, the comparison so is every 
one that is born of the Spirit, would be 
without meaning. It could hardly be 
said that as the operations of the Spirit 
were mysterious, so was every one born 
of the Spirit. Such a sense would in- 
volve the absurdity of virtually com- 
paring a thing with itself. But if we 
adopt the translation of our version, 
and explain it as referring to the mys- 
terious and unseen movement of the 
wind, we have a beautiful and pertinent 
illustration of the point in hand. Nico- 
demus was not to marvel at the truth 
announced to him, for in the natural 
world, he was surrounded by mysteries 
equally beyond his comprehension. 
The original word for spirit is literally, 
a breathing, a breath, and is used of air 
put in gentle motion, a breath of air, 
a gentle breeze. How pertinent the 
illustration thus drawn from a word 
having this two-fold sense, must be 
obvious to all. As the natural spirit 
(i. e. the wind), which breathes over 
the earth, is only seen and known from 
its effects, so the Eternal Spirit, which 
breathes a new moral life into the soul 
of man, can be seen and understood 
only from the wondrous effects thereby 
produced. Where it listeth, (i. e. pleas- 
eth), so far as human agency is con- 
cerned. Thou hearest the sound thereof, 
i. e. thou art made sensible of its oper- 
ations. But canst not tell, &c. Many 
philosophers have attempted to account 
for the phenomena of the winds, and 
lay down the laws which regulate their 
motion and direction, but all their ef- 
forts have proved abortive, so far as 
any practical or reliable results have 
been reached. Thus doubtless we shall 
ever remain in comparative ignorance 
of the laws which regulate the winds, 
their currents and cross-currents, and 
all their shifting and uncertain move- 
ments. Their effects are all that we 



unto him, 9 How can these things 
be? 



see, and we are thus made certain of their 
presence and power. So is every one 
that is born of the Spirit. Thus also 
with the spiritual birth. We know not 
the manner in which it is effected, 
but of its reality we are as certain, by 
its effect on the life and conduct of a 
man, as we are of the movement of the 
wind. This change of heart is repre- 
sented in the New Testament by three 
very striking illustrations. John calls 
it a new birth. Paul speaks of it as a 
new creation (2 Cor. 5 : 17); and again 
as a resurrection or a quickening of the 
dead to life (Eph. 2:1). These terms 
are all significant of a radical moral 
change, and although the manner in 
which it is accomplished, is concealed 
from mortal sight or consciousness, yet 
the effect is so marked and permanent, 
that one would as soon doubt his own 
existence, as the presence of this al- 
mighty and transforming agency. So 
is every one, &c. The similarity con- 
sists in the inexplicable nature of both 
the agencies here referred to. The 
clause, every one that is born of the 
Spirit, is to be taken in the sense of 
the mystery which accompanies the 
spiritual birth of the new-born soul. 
Stier most unaccountably supposes that 
our Lord first of all means Himself, 
"using a condescending expression, 
which ranks Him as originally and first 
born of the Spirit among those who are 
born again," and that "every one who 
bclieveth on Him and receiveth His 
Spirit, becomes like Him in his human- 
ity, restored into that condition in which 
Jesus was from the beginning as the 
first-born among many brethren." 
But I cannot think that our Lord 
would for a moment interrupt this 
great discourse on the necessity and 
inexplicable character of the spiritual 
birth here spoken of, to even allude to 
his own wonderful introduction into the 
world, as the Son of Mary. The term 
every one, is besides too generic to bear 
the sense which Stier assigns it. The 
subject of discourse is man in a fallen, 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER III. 



47 



10 Jesus answered and said 
unto him, Art thou a master of 
Israel, and knowest not these 
things ? 

h Mat. 11 : 27 ; ch. 1 : IS ; & 7 : 1G ; & S : 2S ; & 
12:49; &14:24 

lost condition, standing in infinite need 
of the transforming, renewing influ- 
ences of God's Spirit, and when made 
the subject of this heavenly birth, as 
ignorant of the mode in which it was 
effected, as of the concealed power 
which sets in motion the air, and regu- 
lates its shifting and apparently fitful 
changes. 

9. Nicodemus no longer manifests 
the quibbling, cavilling spirit implied 
in his previous words (v. 4), but now 
in unfeigned surprise, but yet, as we 
may gather from our Lord's reply in 
vs. 11-13, with some remaining unbe- 
lief, exclaims, how can these things be ? 
How is it possible that there can be a 
change, so radical and mysterious as 
the one here denominated a new birth ? 
The verb rendered can be, is more liter- 
ally can be accomplished, can happen or 
take place. The words are not there- 
fore expressive of doubt as to the re- 
ality of the fact declared by Jesus, but 
of amazement in view of its apparent 
impossibility of accomplishment. 

10. Our Lord in reply first expresses 
his wonder, that Nicodemus being a 
master in Israel, should be ignorant 
of the things here spoken of. A 
master ; literally, the teacher, which 
Winer refers to the pre-eminence of 
Nicodemus over the other rulers or 
members of the Sanhedrin, as though 
in him all erudition was concentrated. 
But the article denotes not so much 
his individual pre-eminence, as that of 
the class to which he belonged, the 
members of which were the acknow- 
ledged guides of the people in all that 
pertained to the law. Our Lord by 
thusreferring to the official character 
of Xicodemus, gives a well directed 
blow to his pride, and places him at 
once in the position of a disciple sitting 
at the feet of his master to receive in- 
struction. Stier remarks that Jesus 



11 h Verily, verily, I say unto 
thee, "We speak that we do know, 
and testify that we have seen ; 
and * ye receive not our witness. 



i Ver. 



terms Xicodemus the teacher, for the 
sake of contrast between himself and 
his own ignorance, " at the same time, 
however, including the universal con- 
trast in which the order of which Nico- 
demus is the representative, stands 
with the Saviour." It is as though he 
had said : ' does the teacher new ac- 
knowledge his ignorance, and conde- 
scend to sit at the feet of one who is 
officially so much his inferior ?' Per- 
haps the contrast is rather between 
Xicodemus the teacher, and the spiritual 
ignorance indicated by the following 
clause, and knowest not these things. 
Some find here a certain tinge of irony, 
but if so, it is in the very slightest de- 
gree. The nature of the subject for- 
bids us to suppose, that our Lord would 
taunt his visitor with undue assumption 
in holding the office of public teacher, 
while professedly so ignorant of one of 
the most fundamental truths of re- 
ligion. The question was intended 
rather to put him in the proper at- 
titude of one, who, notwithstanding the 
high official rank which he occupied, 
was dependent, like all others, upon 
the Great Teacher, for light and guid- 
ance on those points which pertained 
to the kingdom of God, and the quali- 
fications necessary to an entrance upon 
its privileges and blessings. 

11. Verily, verily, repeated here the 
third time. The subject is one of such 
weighty and heavenly import, that 
these emphatic adverbs may well be re- 
peated. Our Lord condescends to con- 
firm the faith of Mcodemus, and to re- 
move all lingering unbelief, by an em- 
phatic and positive assertion, that he 
knew whereof he affirmed, having both 
known and seen what to human eyes 
and consciousness was not cognizable. 
The plural we, has needlessly furnished 
much trouble to commentators, some 
referring it to the Father and the Son ; 



48 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



12 If I have told you earthly 
things, and ye believe not, how 



others, to the Son and Spirit ; and 
again others, to our Lord and John the 
Baptist. Alford takes it as a pro- 
verbial saying : ' I am one of those who 
speak what they know, &c.' Stier in 
accordance with his method of inter- 
preting so is every one that is born of 
the Spirit (see N. on v. 8), refers the 
plural we, to those who are born of the 
Spirit, comprising believers in every 
age of the church, including of course 
the Lord Jesus himself, the first-born 
among many brethren (Kom. 8 : 29). 
But the most simple and natural inter- 
pretation is to refer it to our Lord and 
his disciples, some of whom were 
doubtless present at this time, and were 
listening to the conversation here re- 
lated. Jesus and his disciples, in ref- 
erence to the new dispensation, about 
to be inaugurated, are contrasted with 
Nicodemus, and the persons, whoever 
they might be, represented by the plural 
toe, in v. 2. In v. 12, our Lord employs 
the first person singular, which shows 
that the plural of this verse is not, as 
Bloomfield thinks, the plural of author- 
ity ; much less that reference is had to 
the united persons of the Trinity. But 
the reference of the plural to him con- 
jointly with his disciples, makes the 
transition to the singular of the follow- 
ing verse natural and easy. The 
supei'human knowledge here referred 
to as shared with Jesus by his disciples, 
resided in him alone, and hence as the 
discourse progresses in the following 
verse,' Jesus speaks in the first person. 
The words and testify that we have seen, 
are an emphatic repetition of the clause 
immediately preceding. And has the 
force of yet, the clause which it intro- 
duces being adversative. Ye receive 
not, &c. Nicodemus represented the 
unbelieving Jewish rulers, and is there- 
fore included with them in this charge 
of unbelief. There can be no doubt, 
however, that every vestige of doubt 
as to our Lord's Messiahship, was re- 
moved from his mind by this visit. 
12. The general connection of this 



shall ye believe, if I tell you of 
heavenly things ? 



verse may be seen by a reference to v. 
7, where Nicodemus was told not to 
wonder at the necessity of the new birth. 
But although he no longer openly re- 
jected the great spiritual truth which 
had been disclosed to him, yet he was 
unable to comprehend its full import, 
and was possessed of much doubt in re- 
gard to what our Lord had so directly 
and unequivocally asserted. Such being 
his state of mind, in respect to a change 
of heart which w r as to take place on 
earth, and the effect of which was to 
be apparent to human observation, of 
how little avail would it be for our 
Lord to disclose those deeper mysteries, 
which pertained more directly to the 
unseen and heavenly world? The 
things connected with regeneration 
were earthly things, taking place in this 
world, and made the subject of revela- 
tion to man in his present state. But 
what are the heavenly things here spo- 
ken of? Obviously those things which 
belong more especially to the unseen 
and heavenly world, such as the Trini- 
ty, the mystery of the Incarnation, 
the atonement, his office of Interces- 
sor, justification by faith, and simi- 
lar truths, for the full revelation of 
which, neither Nicodemus nor his own 
disciples were yet prepared. The sen- 
timent may be paraphrased : ' I have 
told you of the necessity of a change 
of heart that you may have eternal 
life, and you do not believe ; how can 
you be expected to believe, if I unfold 
to you the more heavenly and spiritual 
mysteries connected with human re- 
demption ? ' The figure is based upon 
the obvious fact, that things upon the 
earth are more plain and comprehensi- 
ble, than those which pertain to the 
upper or heavenly regions. In like 
manner, truths which are palpable to 
the external senses, as the change of 
habits and conduct in a man who has 
experienced the new birth, would be 
more readily understood and admitted, 
than those which lie exclusively in the 
domain of faith, and are not at all cog- 



A. D. 30.] CHAPTER III. 

13 And * no man hath ascended 



49 



3b Pr. 30 : 4 : ch. 6 : 33. 3?. 51. 62 ; & 16 : i 
' 2:34;1 Co. 15:47;Ep. 4:9, 10. 



nizable to the external senses. So 
Webster and Wilkinson: "the things 
in the heavens of which the ark, altar, 
&c, in the temple were patterns." 
Heb. 9 : 23. The reference in a word, 
is to the higher truths of Christianity, 
revealed by the Son of God, as con- 
trasted with the first rudiments of the 
divine life in man, such as the nature 
and necessity of regeneration, with 
which our Lord began his discourse to 
Xicodemus. If I tell you, i. e. when I 
tell you. 

13. The knowledge of the heavenly 
things just referred to, can never be at- 
tained by the unaided powers of the 
human mind. Hence our Lord as the 
Revealer of these great truths, proves 
his heavenly descent, since no one of 
earthly origin can claim to know things 
which belong to another and higher 
sphere. The and, with which this 
verse commences, implies an ellipsis : 
and (you have no means of know- 
ing these heavenly things, for) no man 
(literally no one) hath ascended up into 
heaven, to penetrate the divine plan 
and purpose in regard to human re- 
demption, and bring down intelligence 
thereof to man. The tense of the 
verb in the original is the present 
perfect, the action being considered 
as embracing the whole past period 
of man's history, down to the time 
of the speaker ; no one has ascended 
or is now ascending, as would be ne- 
cessary, in order for one of the hu- 
man race to be admitted to the coun- 
cils of the Deity, so as to declare from 
personal knowledge the heavenly re- 
alities here referred to. Stier makes 
the action of the verb to run also into 
the future, and include especially the 
ascension of Jesus after his resurrec- 
tion. It is true that the clauses so cor- 
respond, that what is denied of a mere 
human being, is asserted as true of 
Him who came down from heaven ; yet 
the scope of the argument throws the 
main emphasis upon the fact, that Jesus 
Tol. III.— 3 



up to heaven, but he that came 
down from heaven, even the Son 
of man which is in heaven. 



had previously descended from heaven, 
which no earthly being could do with- 
out having first ascended, and that 
therefore the Son of man was the only 
Revealer of the things pertaining to the 
heavenly world. But (i. e. except) he 
that came down from heaven, and has 
full and perfect knowledge of the heav- 
enly world. But who is He that has 
thus descended from heaven, and of 
whom it is affirmed that he also as- 
cends to the place whence he came? 
The angels are said to ascend and de- 
scend, but manifestly no one of those 
celestial beings is here referred to. 
The next clause answers this question, 
the Son of man, Jesus of Xazareth, the 
very person who was then conversing 
with the Jewish ruler. With what ap- 
propriate modesty and yet explicitness, 
does our Lord thus assert his heavenly 
origin and pre-existent state. Which 
is in heaven, or more literally, the one be- 
ing in heaven, i. e. whose dwelling place 
is in heaven, and who has intimate 
knowledge of all its mysteries. The 
Son of man as God was in heaven during 
the whole time of the incarnation, as 
this passage definitely asserts, and as 
we might infer from the very nature of 
his essential deity. Bengel very erro- 
neously takes the original in the sense 
of, who was in heaven. The participial 
construction is what grammarians call 
the general or universal present, and 
refers to heaven as our Lord's fixed 
and permanent abode. Was in heaven, 
would also be a tame repetition of the 
idea contained in descended from heaven, 
whereas is in heaven, in reference to 
the incarnate Son of God, expresses 
most emphatically his omnipresence, 
and thus proves his supreme divinity. 
SeeK on 1:18. 

14. The connection between this and 
the preceding verse is not very appar- 
ent. Stier remarks that "hitherto the 
transition had been from the person of 
the man needing regeneration and 
coming to Jesus, to the matter of re- 



50 



JOHK 



[A. D. 30. 



14 l And as Moses lifted up the 
serpent in the wilderness, even 
so m must the Son of man be lifted 
up: 

ZNu. 21:9. 

generation itself; and this again leads 
back the discourse to the person of the 
Son of man, through whom regenera- 
tion comes to us : that now the discourse 
begins to deal with the central mystery 
of the kingdom of God, the being Avho 
between heaven and earth, earthly- 
heavenly, mediates between both, that 
is, with redemption through the death 
of Christ.' 1 '' This is true, but yet leaves 
the connection of thought unexplained, 
and I am inclined therefore to adopt 
Bloomfield's suggestion, that the lifting 
up of the Son of man is adduced as an 
example of the heavenly things, which 
the Lord Jesus Christ came to reveal. 
It was a mystery which the Jews of 
that day did not understand, and which 
they as a nation have to the present 
time refused to receive. Hence it was 
an example directly in point, to illus- 
trate the truth contained in vs. 12, 13. 
This makes the connection with the 
preceding context obvious and natural. 
And with which this verse begins, is 
not a connective, but has the explica- 
tive sense of to wit, namely. With the 
following particle, it may be rendered 
even as Moses lifted up, &c. The point 
of the comparison lies not in the brazen 
serpent and Christ, but in the elevation 
of the former in sight of the people, and 
its healing influence on such as looked 
upon it, compared with the eleva- 
tion of Christ on the cross, and the 
salvation from sin and death, which 
results from faith in a crucified Saviour. 
This appears evident from v. 15, which 
denotes the purpose for which the Son 
of man was lifted up. The brazen 
serpent was a type of Christ, only as it 
was lifted up for the healing of those 
who had been bitten by the fiery ser- 
pents (Numb. 21 : 9). But as the 
brazen serpent represented in its form 
and appearance, the fiery serpents 
whose sting was death, so Christ took 
upon himself the form of those whom 



15 That whosoever believeth in 
him should not perish, "but n have 
eternal life. 

mCh. 8:28; & 12: 32. 
nYer. 36; ch. 6:47. 

he came to redeem, and made himself 
a sin-offering, thus showing in his suf- 
ferings and death how dreadful was the 
sting of sin, the removal of which was 
effected at such an infinite expense. 
Many analogies may be discovered 
between the brazen serpent and Christ, 
yet the passage before us is to be re- 
stricted to the lifting up of both, the 
one, as a remedy for physical, the 
other, for spiritual death. The brazen 
serpent was a type of Christ's elevation 
on the cross, combining, as Webster 
and Wilkinson well remark, besides the 
mode of his sacrificial death, the bene- 
fits of it, and the condition on which 
they are obtained. Must be lifted up. 
The necessity existed in the eternal 
purpose of God, thus to effect the salva- 
tion of the world from sin and death. 
Alford remarks that the expression must 
be lifted up, looks also to something 
beyond the elevation of our Lord upon 
the cross, even to his elevation to king- 
ly dignity. This reference, if it be 
allowed, must be secondary and sub- 
ordinate to the main feature of the 
comparison, which is the elevation of 
Christ on the cross. 

15. As none but those who looked 
upon the brazen serpent, experienced 
its sanitary influence, so faith in Christ 
is essential to salvation through his 
atoning blood. This sense corresponds 
to the clause, which is omitted in the 
former member of the comparison. 
Fully expressed it would bo : as Moses 
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness 
(that whosoever had been bitten might 
look and live), even so must the Son of 
man be lifted up, that whosoever, &c. 
The word whosoever in the original, is 
every one, salvation through the cross 
of Christ being declared to be accessi- 
ble to all who believe on him. The 
saving result of faith is given in the 
twofold form, the negative, should not 
perish, and the positive, shoidd have eter- 



A. D. SO.] 



CHAPTER III. 



51 



nal life. This is in accordance with 
the emphatic fulness with which John 
often expresses great truths. Should not 
perish (as otherwise he must), is here 
opposed to eternal life, and the lost 
condition referred to must therefore be 
eternal death. The words life and death, 
are of frequent use in the writings of 
John, to denote the eternal happiness 
and the eternal misery of the human 
soul. Indeed we may affirm that the 
great and primary signification, which 
God attached to these words in his 
intercourse with man, was eternal hap- 
piness resulting from obedience to His 
holy law, and eternal misery as the 
penalty of disobedience. Adam was 
threatened with death upon the very 
day that he should eat of the for- 
bidden fruit. But Adam did not die a 
natural death on the day of his fall. 
Death then in this instance, which we 
may presume to have been the first time 
of its presentation to the human mind, 
must have been used in the higher 
sense of the penalty of disobedience to 
God's law, eternal death, of which nat- 
ural death was but a type and precur- 
sor. It is probable that Adam thus 
understood the penalty, and that the 
natural dissolution of soul and body, as 
being a part of the condemnation, was 
also called death. Of similar origin 
and usage was the word life. A tree 
of life was planted in the midst of the 
garden. After the fall, Adam was ex- 
pelled from Eden, and the reason given 
was " lest he should put forth his hand, 
and take also of the tree of life, and eat 
and live forever." Mere continuance 
of existence is not here referred to, for 
in that sense all men will live forever ; 
but the expression undoubtedly means 
the favor of God, and the eternal hap- 
piness consequent thereon, of which 
this tree was an emblem or pledge. 
In respect therefore to the Scripture 
use of the words life and death, the 
primary meaning would seem to be 
eternal happiness and eternal misery, 
and the subordinate or derived signifi- 
cation, natural life and death. "We do 
not therefore wrest these words from 
their primary signification, when we 
make them representative of the soul's 



condition beyond the grave. Should 
have (even in the present state) eter- 
nal life abiding in them. So the brazen 
serpent, the emblem and pledge of 
physical life, imparted this life to the 
people, while they were yet in the 
midst of serpents, from the effect of 
whose deadly bite, they had frequent 
necessity of turning their eyes to the 
brazen pledge of safety. The compari- 
son between the brazen serpent and 
Christ, is very forcible and pertinent. 

16-21. It is strange that such able 
commentators as Olshausen, Tholuck, 
Xeander, and De W'ette should make 
the discourse with Xicodemus end with 
v. 15, and refer vs. 16-21 to the Evange- 
list's own words. The continuity of 
thought is so close and apparent, and 
so incomplete would be our Lord's dis- 
course with Xicodemus, were it to break 
off at v. 16, that we cannot for a mo- 
ment behove that vs. 16-21 are not 
the words of Jesus himself. They are 
designed to expand and illustrate the 
preat truth, which now fell for the first 
time upon the ear of the Jewish ruler, 
that the Messiah was to be a spiritual 
Deliverer, and not a temporal prince, 
lie was to save from death and give 
eternal life, and it was for this very 
purpose that God had sent his Son into 
the world, that he might be manifested 
for the salvation of all who believe on 
him. It is no argument against this 
part of the chapter being the continua- 
tion of the discourse of Jesus, that 
Xicodemus henceforth has no apparent 
part in the conversation. There was 
no necessity of recording any further 
remarks or inquiries of his, if he made 
them, the previous references to what he 
said in vs. 2, 4, 9, being made for the 
sole purpose of bringing out the points 
of the conversation, and rendering it 
intelligible to the reader of the sacred 
narrative. The past tenses in which 
the discourse is now caiTied on, are 
employed to bring out more clearly and 
definitely the great fact, that the ad- 
vent of God's "Son was not fortuitous, 
or the result of a sudden and fitful im- 
pulse, but was in accordance Avith the 
eternal counsel and infinite love of the 
Father, by which he freely surrendered 



52 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



16 ° For G-od so loved the world | Son, that whosoever believeth in 



that he gave his only begotten 



oEo. 5:8; Uo. 4:9. 



his Son to death. We are not, how- 
ever, to suppose from this, that there 
was really a particular period in the 
ages of eternity, Avhen the work of re- 
demption was planned. The eternity 
of God is not measurable like man's 
existence, by successive periods of time. 
Forms of language however are made 
use of that would seem to imply this, 
for the simple purpose of bringing the 
subject down to our partial comprehen- 
sion at least, and to impress us fully with 
the great fact, that such a redemptive 
arrangement between the persons of 
the adorable Trinity has actually taken 
place. 

16. This wondrous verse, which so 
fully and sublimely discloses the gift of 
God's Son, as proceeding from the 
Father's eternal and infinite love, and 
the freedom and fulness of salvation for 
a dying world through faith in Jesus 
Christ, is called by Luther " the Bible 
in miniature." Indeed it would be 
difficult to find elsewhere, even in God's 
own book, words of such a compre- 
hensive sweep, and so fully expressive 
of the moving cause of redemption 
through the atoning blood of God's 
own Son. For. This particle connects 
the verse with what precedes, and can 
be accounted for on no other ground, 
than that the passage is the continua- 
tion of the words of Jesus to Nicode- 
mus. So, i. e. to such a degree. Loved. 
This was the love of benevolence and 
sympathy. The world. John uses this 
word in two senses, one as here to de- 
note the whole race of man lying in 
wickedness, exposed to God's wrath, 
yet in their very helplessness and ab- 
ject misery so loved of God that he sent 
his Son to die for them ; the other, the 
unbelieving portion of mankind, as op- 
posed to those, who have forsaken their 
sins and are justified through faith in 
a crucified Redeemer. In this latter 
sense, our Lord very frequently em- 
ployed the expression in the last dis- 
course which he had with his disciples, 



him should not perish, "but have 



everlasting life. 



as given in chaps, xiv.-xvii. That he 
gave, &c. This is the effect of God's 
love, and serves also to denote the man- 
ner in which it displayed itself. On the 
one hand, there was love ; on the other, 
the greatest sacrifice of which a creat- 
ed intelligence could have any concep- 
tion — the giving up of God's only be- 
gotten Son to shame, humiliation, suf- 
fering, and death. Great as was this 
sacrifice, the love for a dying world was 
still greater, so that God spared not his 
own Son, but delivered him up for us 
all. Rom. 8:32. There could be no 
higher manifestation of God's love to 
man than this. Hence the words so 
loved, have a peculiar emphasis, the 
adverb in the original being placed at 
the very commencement of the verse. 
The verb gave, is to be taken in the 
sense of giving up to humiliation, suf- 
fering, and death. Great emphasis is 
given to this word from the connection 
in which it stands. The expense of 
parental feeling with which the Father 
showed his great love for the world, is 
expressed in the simple word gave, gave 
up, or resigned, leaving the mind to 
supply the low condition to which the 
Son of God descended, and the suffer- 
ings he underwent for human redemp- 
tion. The language is expressive of the 
most tender and intimate relation be- 
tween the Father and Son ; but this did 
not suffice to prevent on the one hand, 
the giving up of God's beloved Son, and 
on the other, the voluntary offer of the 
Son to leave the bosom of the Father to 
achieve the work of man's salvation. 
Only begotten Son. Another heighten- 
ing circumstance, introduced to give 
emphasis to God's love in sending his 
Son into the world. We see where John 
got this term, which is found so often in 
his writings, and applied in so peculiar a 
sense to the Messiah. In respect to the 
Sonship of Christ, see N. on Matt. 28 : 
19. That ivhosoever, &c. This is an 
emphatic repetition of v. 15, and iden- 
tifies the lifting up of the Son of man 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER III. 



53 



17 p For God sent not his Son 



p Lu. 9 : 56 ; cli. 5: 45 ; <fc S: 15; &12 : 47; 1 Jo. 
4:14. 



with the giving of the only begotten 
Son of God, by the identity of the re- 
sult in both cases, viz. eternal life 
through faith in Christ, The lifting 
up, and the giving up, both refer to one 
and the same scene of suffering and 
death ; the prediction is of one and the 
same personage designated by the two- 
fold appellation, Son of man, and only 
begotten Son of God. The heavenly 
and the earthly, the divine and the hu- 
man, are here joined in mysterious and 
indissoluble union, in the person of 
Jesus Christ, who took upon himself 
our nature, and yet was over all, God 
blessed for evermore. Rom. 9 : 5. 

17. The Jews not only supposed that 
the advent of the Messiah was to be 
for their sole benefit, but that he was 
to judge and punish the Gentile world. 
Our Lord corrects this erroneous view ; 
first by declaring that it was God's 
love for the whole race of mankind, 
which caused him to give up the Son 
of his bosom to die for their sin ; and 
then, by a positive denial that it was 
the mission of God's Son to condemn 
or destroy any portion of the human 
family, the design being rather that all 
might obtain salvation. This verse 
therefore stands connected with the 
preceding, as confirmatory of the truth 
there asserted, that the giving up of 
God's Son was for the salvation of the 
world. The verb sent, is here sub- 
stituted for gave in v. 16, and indicates 
the official subordination of the Son as 
Messiah and Redeemer of men. To 
condemn (literally to judge) responds to 
should perish in v. 16, and signifies to 
pass sentence of judgment and con- 
demnation. But how is the assertion 
that Christ was not sent to judge the 
world reconcilable with these texts, 
where it is said that He is to be the 
final Judge of mankind (see 5 : 22 ; 9 : 
39; Acts 17 : 31; 2 Tim. 4: 1)? Stier 
seeks to remove the difficulty by aver- 
ring that "the Lord Jesus Christ is not 
to be sent a second time ; this expres- 



into the world to condemn the 
world ; but that the world through 
him might be saved. 

sion never being used of his coming to 
judgment, for the Son is sent as a ser- 
vant, not in the majesty of the Father." 
This is well, but does not reach the full 
meaning of the texts referred to, and 
besides lays too much stress on the verb 
sent. The sole mission of Christ was 
one of mercy and love. It was to save 
mankind from sin and death, that he 
came into the world. It was not then 
to pass a condemning sentence upon 
the Gentile world according to the 
Jewish notion, that he as Messiah had 
made his advent, but to proffer salva- 
tion to them, as well as to the Jews, 
through faith in him. It is no contra- 
diction to this, that he shall come again 
at the final consummation of things, to 
take vengeance upon his enemies, and 
banish from his favor all who have re- 
fused to receive him as the Saviour of 
men. His work of judgment is a neces- 
sary appendage to that of salvation. He 
first provides eternal life for the slaves 
of sin and death ; but it is meet that he 
shall make strict inquisition, as to the 
manner in which his gracious overtures 
have been received, and visit with 
merited punishment those who are 
proved to have been incorrigibly re- 
bellious and impenitent. But that the 
world through him might be saved. The 
positive form of assertion enforces and 
illustrates the preceding negative, as in 
vs. 15, 16. The antithesis which lies 
here between might be saved and to 
condemn, shows clearly that our trans- 
lators were right in thus rendering the 
verb, the literal sense of which is to 
judge. Alford notices the change from 
that he might save the world, which 
would be in exact correspondence with 
the preceding clause, to that the ivorld 
through him might be saved, the free 
will of the creature being by this 
strikingly set forth in connection with 
vs. 19, 20. Through him as the only 
and sufficient Saviour. 

18. This verse is in part an emphatic 
repetition of the preceding sentiment, 



54 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



18 q He tliat believeth on him is 
not condemned : but he that be- 
lievetli not is condemned already, 
because he hath not believed in 
the name of the only begotten 
Son of Grod. 

q Ch. 5 : 24; & 6: 40, 47; & 20: 31. 

and in part the ingrafting of another 
sentiment upon the foregoing thought, 
that while the mission of God's Son was 
not one of judgment and condemnation, 
yet upon those who did not believe on 
him rested the sentence of condem- 
nation, enhanced in its severity by their 
unbelief in the only begotten Son of 
God. Not having availed themselves 
of salvation through Christ, they were 
still under the curse and condemnation 
of God's law, and thus stood in no need 
of being condemned by God's Son, 
The general terms employed in vs. 16, 
17, are here followed by the specific 
application of salvation through faith, 
or condemnation through unbelief, to 
every one whether Jew or Gentile. Is 
not condemned, i. e. the sentence of 
condemnation under which he lies from 
having broken God's law, is removed 
by faith in Christ. It should be noticed 
that the act of faith here spoken of is 
the believer's own act, and in this the 
parallel is preserved between believers 
in Christ, and those who by their own 
act looked at the brazen serpent which 
Moses lifted up in the wilderness. Is 
condemned already, i. e. remains under 
the condemning sentence of God's law. 
The word already, refers here to 
present condemnation, as opposed to 
that which is future. The reason is 
given in the next clause, because he 
hath not believed in the name of the only 
begotten Son of God. This is an ex- 
panded reaffirmation of the preceding 
clause, he that believeth not, and points 
out in the most express terms, the 
ground on which condemnation rests 
upon men. Mankind are brought 
under condemnation from having vio- 
lated the law ; they are referred to here 
as remaining under that dread sentence, 
because they reject the Being, who 
came into the world for the express 



19 And this is the condemna- 
tion, r that light is come into the 
world, and men loved darkness 
rather than light, because their 
deeds were evil. 

r Ch. 1:4,9, 10, 11; & 8:12. 



purpose of saving them from the pen- 
alty of the law. The general sentiment 
of the verse is, that the Messiah had 
not come into the world, as the Jews 
supposed,- to condemn and destroy 
a part of mankind, but to save all of 
every nation who would believe on 
him. Upon those, however, who re- 
jected him the wrath of God would 
still abide, so that in fact they were 
condemned already. "If in the ap- 
pearance of Christ, forgiveness of sins, 
life, and salvation, are offered to men, 
and if faith be the channel through 
which these blessings are conferred 
upon men, unbelief is a judgment of 
one's self." Tholuck. In the name of 
the only begotten Son of God, is a peri- 
phrasis for the only begotten Son of 
God. See N. on Matt, 28 : 19. 

19. Our Lord proceeds to denote 
more fully the ground of the condem- 
nation, which rests upon those who do 
not believe on God's Son. The connec- 
tion will be seen by briefly recapitulat- 
ing the preceding train of thought: 
'You Jews think that an important 
part of the mission of Christ, is to take 
vengeance upon the Gentile world. 
But God sent his Son to save, and not 
to condemn the world. Salvation from 
the curse of God's violated law depends 
not upon nation, condition, or privi- 
lege, but simply upon faith in the Son 
of God. This (then and no other) is 
the (ground of) condemnation, namely 
the obstinate perverseness of the heart 
of man, which leads to darkness and 
unbelief, instead of light and salva- 
tion.' Light; literally, the Light, i. e. 
the Messiah. See 1:4, 7-9. The 
omission of the article in our common 
version, is quite infelicitous, as the 
reader is in danger thereby of referring 
the light here spoken of, to the light of 
truth revealed in the Scriptures and in 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER III. 



55 



20 For * every one that doeth 
evil hatetk the light, neither 

8 Job 24 : 13, IT ; Ep. 5 : 13. 

the book of nature. The reference is 
to Jesus Christ, the great Revealer of 
the ways of God to man. Moral light, 
as it radiates from God's Word and the 
works of creation around us, is indeed 
implied in the expression, because, as 
has been remarked, Christ is the au- 
thor and source of all the moral light 
which beams upon the pathway of men. 
Opposed as it is in these verses to dark- 
ness, it is to be taken in its abstract 
sense of light, yet not to the overlook- 
ing of the great truth, that it proceeds 
from Him who was both the Light and 
Life of men. 

And men. The copulative conjunc- 
tion is used for but, because the advent 
of the Light, and the preference which 
men give to darkness, constitute to- 
gether the ground of condemnation. 
Had the Light not been manifested, the 
sin of unbelief would never have been 
chargeable upon men; and had the 
Light been fully received and acknowl- 
edged, every ground of condemnation 
would have been removed. But as the 
Light was both manifested, and rejected 
by men, the condemnation is sure and 
irremediable. Loved darkness (literally, 
the darkness) rather than the light, or 
more than the light. The form of the 
comparison, which is the same as in 
Matt. 18 : 13, is intended to show that 
men see something to admire in the 
Light proffered to them, but yet prefer 
the darkness. This accords with expe- 
rience and observation. .It is not un- 
common to hear wicked men extol the 
Founder of the Christian religion, and 
yet evince their supreme preference for 
the very opposite to what He inculcat- 
ed while on earth, and laid down His 
life to make accessible to lost men. 
The language of the comparison seems 
to be framed to meet this inconsistency 
in men. But this preference of dark- 
ness to light is so deep and abiding, 
that it effectually shuts out from the 
heart of men, the light in all its reno- 
vating and saving influence. Hence 
this preferment of darkness, in full 



cometh to the light, lest his deeds 
should he reproved. 



view of the glorious light which God in 
the gift of his Son has vouchsafed to 
men, is the very ground and evidence 
of their condemnation. More than 
this, while the violation of God's holy 
law brings all men into a state of con- 
demnation, the aversion which they en- 
tertain for the way of salvation through 
Jesus Christ, both enhances that con- 
demnation, and precludes all hope of 
its removal in the way provided in the 
gospel of God's Son. Such seems to 
be the fulness of meaning of this 
great text, which vindicates God from 
the charge of necessitating men either 
by his eternal purpose or by his provi- 
dence, to remain beneath the condem- 
ning sentence of his law, while through 
his infinite love a Saviour has been 
provided and fully offered to them for 
the remission of their offences. Be- 
cause their deeds were evil. This stands 
as the cause of men's preference of 
dai-kness to light. The word rendered 
evil, is of stronger import than the one 
thus rendered in v. 20, the idea of the 
inveterate and malignant evil of sin be- 
ing referred to in the one case, and 
wrong doing in all its varied shades 
and degrees of guilt, in the other. The 
one is the principle, the other the prac- 
tice of evil. It is the former which ob- 
structs the light of truth, the latter 
which, as the outgoing or expression 
of this evil principle within, gives 
strength to it, and hardens the soul 
against every holy and heavenly influ- 
ence. So Tholuck well remarks : "the 
more man abandons himself to evil, the 
more does he regard it as his proper 
self and loves it as himself." 

20. For every one, &c. This verse 
expands and confirms the reason given 
in the preceding verse, why men loved 
darkness rather than light (viz.) because 
their deeds were evil. Evil doing is now 
declared to be so paralyzing to all right 
action, and to the desire for that which 
is good, that it causes men not simply 
to prefer darkness to light, but to ab- 
solutely hate the light. The specific 



56 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



21 But lie that doeth truth 
cometh to the light, that his deeds 

reference in the words every one, to the 
individuals of the whole human race, 
is aimed at the Jewish notion, to which 
allusion has been made, that the Gen- 
tiles alone were evil doers and subject 
to condemnation. Tliat doeth evil. 
The original verb, as was remarked in 
the preceding note, refers this to the 
habitual practice of evil, such as results 
from an active evil principle within, or 
what is more usually denominated, a 
depraved nature. The word is em- 
ployed of what one does repeatedly, 
continually, habitually. Hateth the light. 
In v. 19, the form of expression was 
such as to denote simple preference of 
darkness to light. Here it advances 
to positive hatred of the light. But as 
this verse is confirmatory and illustra- 
tive of the preceding one, it shows that 
the preference of darkness to light 
there spoken of, was in reality a posi- 
tive love of the one and hatred of the 
other. This does not militate, however, 
against the well known fact, to which 
reference has been made, that the habit 
and practice of doing evil, gives depth 
and strength to the hatred of good, 
which arises from a depraved heart. 
Neither cometh to the light, &c. A 
general and well established principle 
is here laid down, that a course of 
wrong doing stands in the way of all 
honest inquiry after truth. The reason 
is given in the next clause, lest his 
deeds shoxdd be reproved (or rebuked). 
The language partakes of the meta- 
phorical, being based on the exposure to 
the natural light of defects, which oth- 
erwise would not have been detected by 
the eye. Thus the light of truth re- 
veals the odious character of man's 
acts, and subjects him to the reproof 
of God's law and his own conscience. 
So terrible are the upbraidings of con- 
science when thus enlightened and 
stimulated to action, and so terrific are 
the denunciations of the divine law, 
that men prefer to remain in darkness, 
rather than to expose themselves to 
such mental distress by coming to the 



may be made manifest, that they 
are wrought in God. 



lest, does not quite reach the full im- 
port of the original. In order that his 
deeds mag not be reproved, is the more 
literal and accurate translation. This 
brings out the idea of deliberate pur- 
pose in not coming to the light, more 
clearly than our common version. 
There is an antithesis between shoidd be 
reproved, and may be made manifest in 
v. 21, which imparts to the former the 
idea of exposure to the light, as well as 
reproof. 

21. Contrasted with the spiritual 
darkness and condemnation of those 
who practice evil and shut their eyes to 
the truth, is the conduct and condition 
of the man who does well, and puts 
himself under the influence of the 
truth. The verb translated doeth, is a 
different one from that employed in 
doeth evil, in v. 20. That verb refers, 
as has been remarked, to the contin- 
ued and habitual wrong doing of the 
man who hateth the light ; this verb 
brings out more prominently the doing 
good, as resulting from a fixed princi- 
ple of rectitude within. Webster and 
Wilkinson thus distinguish between 
these verbs : the former (in v. 20) de- 
notes what we do naturally and easily ; 
the latter (v. 21), what is done with 
difficulty and effort. The one involves 
the idea of practice ; the other, perform- 
ance. Action is the predominant idea 
in the one ; the accomplishment of a 
result, in the other. Alford takes the 
verb in v. 21, as referring to the true 
doing of good, what we call good fruit, 
or good which remains. There is be- 
sides this antithesis of the verbs, another 
strong point of contrast between the 
word rendered evil, in v. 20, which 
literally signifies ivorthless, vain, and 
the solid, substantial, abiding fruit of 
well doing, spoken of in this verse. 
This double antithesis may be briefly 
expressed, in the practice of all that 
is worthless and vain on the one hand, 
and the accomplishment of that which 
is true, real, and abiding, on the other. 
No language could better express this 
radical difference between the children 



A. D. SO.] 



CHAPTER III. 



57 



22 T After these things came | 23 ^[ And John also was baptiz- 
Jesus and his disciples into the ing in Enon near to " Salim, be- 
cause there was much water there : 
3 and they came, and were bap- 
tized. 



land of Judea ; and there he tar 



ried with them 



and baptized. 

tCh. 4:2. 



« 1 Sa. 



it Mat 3 : 5, 6. 



of darkness and of light, than that 
■which is employed in the original Greek, 
but which loses much of its condensed 
force in our translation, being obliged 
as avc are, to employ for both verbs the 
same word doelh, or else -weaken the 
force of the passage by a periphrastic 
translation. TJiat his deeds, &c. This 
is not to be attributed to the love of 
praise or notoriety, but a desire to bring 
one's acts and feelings to the searching 
test of truth, in order that it may be de- 
termined, whether they arc wrought in 
God, i. e. are in accordance with God's 
commands, and proceed from him as 
the source of all good. The sentiment 
is illustrated in Ps. 19 : 12 ; 139 : 23, 24. 
Our Lord here teaches Nicodemus that 
the great cause of man's alienation 
from God, is his deep and abiding hatred 
of the light which discloses to him his 
true moral character. The very reverse 
of this reluctance to come to the light, 
is declared to be characteristic of one 
■who wishes to obtain a clear view of 
his spiritual state. He seeks to test his 
acts in the searching light of God's 
word, knowing well that he who cower- 
eth his sins shall not prosper (Prov. 
28: 13). 

22-36. Jesus remains in Judea and 
baptizes. Further testimony of John 
the Baptist. 

22. After these things. The expres- 
sion of time is indefinite, and we may 
suppose, therefore, that several days 
elapsed before Jesus left Jerusalem for 
the district of Judea. Zand of Judea 
is here put simply for Judea in contra- 
distinction to Jerusalem, where the con- 
versation with Xicodemus was held. 
See X. on Matt. 2:1. Bloomfield thinks 
that our Lord went to Bethabara, John 
having gone to ^Enon for the greater 
convenience of the Samaritans. With 
them, i. e. his disciples. Baptized by the 
agency of his disciples. See 4 : 2. This 
Vol. III.— 3* 



baptism was not like John's baptism, 
simply unto repentance (see Matt. 3 : 11), 
but was doubtless attended by a profes- 
sion of belief in the Messiah, as having 
already come. This does not imply that 
the candidates had those clear and 
spiritual views of the office work of the 
Messiah, which they had after the out- 
pouring of the Spirit on the day of 
Pentecost. We see in many instances 
how imperfect were the views of Christ's 
chosen apostles, previous to his resur- 
rection and ascension, and it cannot be 
supposed that these persons who were 
baptized by them, had more correct or 
enlarged views than they themselves. 
The disciples and those whom they bap- 
tized, w-ere educated gradually into the 
mysteries of the kingdom of Christ; 
and all that was required in the outset, 
as terms of admission into the visible 
church, were penitence and faith in a 
present Messiah. 

23. John also, &c. As our Lord 
entered more fully upon the work of 
his ministry, John seems to have re- 
tired from his leading position, as a 
Baptizer and Eeformer. "As John's 
commission was now on the wane, so 
our Lord's was expanding." Alford. 
John, however, continued to baptize 
such as came to him. We have no 
evidence that he modified the terms on 
which he administered the rite, after 
the public appearance of Jesus, so that 
faith in a Messiah already come was 
added to repentance and reformation 
of life ; much less, that he attached 
himself in any way to the company of 
Jesus. Alford in reference to the bap- 
tism administered at this time by John, 
and also by the disciples of Jesus, re- 
marks that they stood very much in 
the same position, both being "prepar- 
atory to the public ministry of our 
Lord properly so called, which began 
in Galilee after the imprisonment of 



58 



24 Eor v John was not yet cast 
into prison. 

25 "iT Then there arose a ques- 

y Mat. 14 : 3. 



J0HIS T . [A. D. 30. 

tion between some of John's dis- 
ciples and the Jews about puri- 



John." But it seems very improbable 
that such was the nature of the bap- 
tism administered by Jesus's disciples, 
after their Master had professed him- 
self to be the Messiah (see 1 : 3G, 45, 
49, 51 ; 2 : 23 ; 3 : 12-18). uEnon was 
probably situated in one of the valleys 
running down to the Jordan from the 
west. Salim was a village near the 
valley of the Jordan, some eight miles 
S. of Bethlehem. Because there was 
much water there. There can be no 
doubt that this stands as the reason, why 
John chose that locality for the adminis- 
tration of the rite of baptism. The only 
question is, as to the use or purpose to 
which the water was applied. Some 
refer it to what was required for the 
rite of baptism, and claim it as proof 
that the rite was administered by im- 
mersion. Others aver that nothing 
more is meant, than that water was 
supplied in abundance for the multitude 
of people with their beasts of burden, 
who flocked to John's baptism. The 
word translated much water, is literally 
many waters, and is used of a sea or 
lake, the surface of which is agitated 
and broken up by the wind. It is the 
dashing and roaring of these waves, 
which furnishes the simile in Ezek. 19 : 
10 ; Rev. 1 : 15 ; 14 : 2 ; 19 : 6, de- 
noted by " the voice of many waters." 
The phrase is also used of many rivulets 
or streams, and also of a river, which is 
supposed to contain in its bosom many 
streams. That the signification here 
is many fountains or streamlets, seems 
quite clear from the fact that the place 
was called JEnon, i. e. fountains, or a 
.place of fountains. If the necessities 
of the rite of baptism arc referred to, 
it would seem that a single rivulet, by 
excavating a place into which its wa- 
ters might flow, would have sufficed for 
the administering of the rite, even sup- 
posing it to have been performed by 
immersion. But one small stream would 
hardly have supplied the wants of the 



multitudes, who came with their beasts 
of burden to attend upon his ministry. 
I am inclined, therefore, to believe that 
this place of 'many fountains was chosen, 
not so much in reference to the water 
required for baptism, as for the wants 
of the great multitudes who attend- 
ed John's preaching and baptism. 
So Webster and Wilkinson: "many 
streams probably or pools of water, 
convenient for the distribution of the 
multitudes into parties. In no other 
sense would much water be an advan- 
tage, or ^Enou preferable to Bethabara." 
And they came and were baptized. The 
subject in the original is omitted, but 
is very naturally supplied from the con- 
text. 

2-i. For John was not, &c. This 
seems to have been inserted by the 
Evangelist, to show that our Lord's 
public ministry, for a time at least, was 
concurrent with that of John, the 
idea also receiving prominence from 
this simple announcement, that John 
did not cease from his public ministra- 
tions, until he was compelled thereto 
by his imprisonment. Webster and 
Wilkinson regard this as one of the 
proofs, that the Evangelist wrote some 
time after the publication and circula- 
tion of the first three gospels, or of one 
or other of them in Asia Minor. He 
speaks of John's imprisonment as a 
well-known fact, although he gives no 
account of its cause or of his death. 

25. Then connects this with v. 23, 
the narrative having been broken by 
the parenthesis in v. 24. The particle 
is also slightly illative, introducing the 
dispute which follows as a consequence 
of the fact previously recorded, that 
Jesus and John were baptizing at the 
same time. The word rendered ques- 
tion, has here the sense of disputation. 
Between some of John's disciples. This 
translation is not good. The original 
clearly indicates that the dispute began 
on the part of John's disciples, and wag 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER in. 



59 



2u And they came unto John, 
and said unto him, Rabbi, he 
that was- with thee beyond Jor- 



not restricted to a part of them, as the 
word some, supplied in our common 
version, would imply. The literal trans- 
lation is, there arose (i. e. was started) 
from John's disciples a disputation with 
the Jews, i. e. it commenced with John's 
disciples. Many MSS. have the singu- 
lar with a Jew, supposed to have been 
one who had just been baptized by the 
disciples of Jesus, and the reality or 
necessity of whose baptism was ques- 
tioned by the disciples of John, in their 
zeal for the honor of their master. 
That this was the exciting cause of the 
dispute, seems clear from the words of 
John (vs. 28 — 30) ; and if the plural 
Jews, is the correct reading, it only 
shows that instead of one, several of 
the persons baptized by Jesus' disciples 
were present and engaged in the dis- 
pute. About purifying, i. c. about the 
nature and efficacy of baptismal purifi- 
cation. Each party doubtless strove 
to prove the superior validity of their 
baptism, by an appeal to the nature 
and design of the ordinance in the 
Messianic annunciation and subsequent 
development. That it was not a ques- 
tion confined to John's baptism, as 
relating to the legal purifications of the 
Jews, is evident from the report made 
in v. 2G by his disciples to their master, 
in which there is clearly an intimation, 
that Jesus was assuming a function 
which belonged rightfully and solely to 
John. Baptism as administered by his 
disciples, was in their estimation an 
encroachment upon the rights and priv- 
ileges of their master, against which 
they felt bound to utter their strong 
protest. 

26. They, i. e. John's disciples. Came 
unto John, in order to refer the question 
of dispute to his decision. It Avould 
seem from this appeal to John, that 
they had been worsted in the discussion ; 
or that difficulties had been started 
which they were unable to remove. 
They manifested a hasty, petulant, 



dan, z to whom thou barest wit- 
ness, behold, the same baptizeth, 
and all men come to him. 

a Ch. 1 : 7, 15, 27, 84. 



fault-finding temper, and this makes the 
rebuke they received from their master 
very appropriate and significant. Rabbi. 
This was the usual term of respect with 
which a teacher was addressed. It is 
the only place, however, where John 
the Baptist is thus addressed. He that 
vxts ivith thee, &c. They do not refer 
to Jesus by name, either because they 
wished in this way to show their sense 
of his inferiority to John ; or because, 
after the high testimony which John 
had borne to Jesus, they thought it 
would be displeasing to him, for them 
to refer to Jesus by his simple name. 
The use of the pronoun, which although 
not here employed in its contemptu- 
ous sense (see 3SF. on Matt. 26 : 61), 
is nevertheless slightly disrespectful, 
shows that the former sense is probably 
the correct one. Beyond Jordan, i. e. 
at Bethabara. See 1 : 28. This shows 
that iEnon was west of Jordan. To 
whom thou barest witness. See 1 : 29, 
36. The comparatively low estimate, 
which this whole transaction shows 
that John's disciples placed upon the 
official character of Jesus, proves clear- 
ly that they had not yet reached the 
full import of the testimony here refer- 
red to. It was doubtless in their view, 
simply a testimony to Jesus as a public 
religious teacher, but by no means rais- 
ing him to an equality with their mas- 
ter, to whose extraordinary zeal and 
piety, the whole nation were doing 
homage. This erroneous view of the 
comparative worth and dignity of John 
and Jesus, makes the reply of the 
Baptist very pertinent and striking. 
Barest witness : literally hast borne 
icitness, i. e. testified in his favor. Be- 
hold indicates their sense of the impor- 
tant intelligence, which they are about 
to communicate. All men come to him, 
to receive instruction and baptism. 
The exaggerated terms in which they 
speak of the growing popularity of 
Jesus, shows to what a pitch of excite- 



60 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



27 John answered and said, 
a A man can receive nothing, ex- 
cept it be given him from heaven. 

28 Ye yourselves bear me wit- 
ness, that I said, b I am not the 
Christ, but c that I am sent be- 
fore him. 

ol Co. 4: 7; He. 5:4; Ja. 1 : IT. 

& Ch. 1 : 20, 27. 
c Mai. 3 : 1 ; Ma. 1 : 2 ; Lu. 1 : 17. 



merit John's disciples had been wrought 
up, by what they deemed an infringe- 
ment upon his official rights. Webster 
and Wilkinson compare the expression 
all men, with Mark 1:5; Luke 3 : 21, 
but there the language is that of the 
Evangelist ; here, of men in a highly 
excited state, wishing evidently to 
prejudice John against Jesus, or at 
least to awaken his jealousy at his in- 
creasing fame. 

27. John replies to this report of the 
increasing reputation of Jesus, that no 
one can transcend the limits of official 
influence appointed him of God. Each 
one has his gifts, graces, and spheres 
of influence, and with these he must 
be content. A man is here put in 
contrast with the Son of God, which 
John by divine illumination had de- 
clared Jesus to be (1 : 34). It denotes 
therefore in this connection, weakness 
and imperfection, and introduces with 
strong emphasis the low estimate which 
John placed upon himself when com- 
pared with Jesus. Can receive nothing, 
i. e. can arrogate to himself no honor 
or official rank. From heaven, i. e. 
from God whose dwelling place is 
heaven. John's reply in the very out- 
set, is a disclaimer against the high 
notions, which his disciples entertained 
of his official rank compared with that 
of Jesus. 

28. In this verse John avers that he 
had made no concealment of his views 
in regard to the character of Jesus, and 
in proof of this refers to the testimony 
which he had publicly borne at Betha- 
bara, that Jesus was the Messiah, and 
that he was simply his Forerunner (see 
1 : 23, 29). Ye yourselves bear me 
witness. John's disclaimer of the 



29 d He that hath the bride is 
the bridegroom : but c the friend 
of the bridegroom, which standeth 
and heareth him, rejoiceth great- 
ly because of the bridegroom's 
voice : this my joy therefore is 
fulfilled. 

d Matt. 22:2; 2 Co. 11:2; Ep. 5:25, 27; Ee. 

21; 9. 

e Cant. 5:1. 

Messiahship was made in the hearing 
of his disciples, and hence they could 
bear witness not only to what he had 
asserted in reference to the character 
of Jesus, but also in relation to his 
own official position. I am sent before 
him, i. e. as his Forerunner. The pro- 
noun him, in the Greek, is not the one 
which would have been employed, had 
reference been made directly to the 
word Christ, but refers to the more re- 
mote antecedent he (i. e. Jesus) in v. 
26. But this clause follows in such close 
connection the preceding words lam 
not the Christ, that it makes the person 
to whom the pronoun refers, and the 
Christ, one and the same. Thus this 
becomes an additional attestation on 
the part of John, that Jesus was the 
Christ. 

29. He that hath the bride, i. e. 
whom the bride follows, or who has the 
bride under his particular and tender 
charge. Such a person would be 
distinguished in the company, as the 
bridegroom. In like manner as all 
men were coming to Jesus, his relation 
to the church as bridegroom, was be- 
ginning to be fully manifest. The 
friend of the bridegroom. Alford says 
that this person was the regular organ 
of communication in the preliminaries 
of the marriage feast. He was called 
the paranymph, from his attendance on 
the bridegroom. Which standeth and 
heareth him, i. e. remains at his side 
and within the sound of his voice. No 
reference is had in the form of this ex- 
pression, to his attendance as a ser- 
vant, but as a friend. Heareth him 
conversing with his bride, and express- 
ing his joy in her possession. Rejoiceth 
greatly because of the bridegroom 's voice, 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER III. 



61 



30 He must increase, but I must 
decrease. 

31 ; He that cometh from above 
' is above all : h he that is of the 

fYer. 13; ch. 8:23. 
g Mat. 23 : IS ; ch. 1 : 15. 27 ; Eo. 9 : 5. 

i. e. because his voice is indicative of 
affection for his bride, and of satis- 
faction in the marriage arrangements. 
He was a happy bridegroom, and his 
friend shared his happiness. The 
application is simple and obvious. 
Christ being the bridegroom and the 
church his spouse, it became John as 
his friend and forerunner, to rejoice in 
his increasing glory and fame. It is 
■worthy of remark, that God declares 
himself in the Old Testament Scriptures 
to be the husband of his people. In 
like manner in the New Testament, 
Christ is revealed as a bridegroom, the 
church being his spouse. There can 
be no doubt that this relation of Christ 
to his church, forms the groundwork 
of this comparison, as well as the one 
employed in Matt. 9 : 14. See Luke 
5 : 35 ; Rev. 21 : 9. The inference 
from this is irresistible, that the bride- 
groom of the church in the Old Testa- 
ment dispensation, and of the church 
in the New Testament, must be one and 
the same Being ; and this passage there- 
fore furnishes strong collateral proof 
of the great declaration in v. 1, that the 
incarnate Logos is God. The attentive 
reader will not fail to perceive that the 
great utterances, with which John's 
gospel abounds, all converge towards, 
or spring from this fundamental truth 
of Christ's supreme divinity, which was 
announced so clearly and emphatically 
in the very outset. This my joy there- 
fore is fulfilled, i. e. in a similar man- 
ner my joy is now consummated, in the 
evidence of a present Messiah, before 
whom I rejoice to take a subordinate 
position. John, to use the language 
of the illustration, had acted in the 
capacity of a friend to the Bridegroom, 
arranging the preliminaries, and pre- 
paring the way for his introduction to 
his spouse ; and having finished his al- 
lotted task, he rejoiced in witnessing 
the superior honor accorded to one, 



earth is earthly, and speaketh of 
the earth : l he that cometh from 
heaven is above all. 

h Co. 15 : 47. 
iCh. 6:33; 1 Co. 15:47; Ep. 1 : 21 ; Phi. 2:9. 

whom he acknowledged as his Lord 
and Master. 

30. He must increase, but I must de- 
crease. "While reference is specially 
had to the increasing numbers who at- 
tended upon our Lord's ministration 
(see v. 26 end), and the proportionate 
decrease of those who came to John 
for religious instruction, yet the ex- 
pression covers other parts of their re- 
spective ministry. The language is 
borrowed from the waxing and waning 
of the heavenly bodies. As in the 
beams of the sun the stars disappear, 
so before the Sun of Righteousness, shall 
all the lesser luminaries, even the morn- 
ing star itself the harbinger of day, fade 
away and disappear from sight. 

3i. Expositors have not been want- 
ing, who would break up the continuity 
of this discourse, by attributing the 
words from this verse to the end of the 
chapter to the Evangelist. Among the 
modern critics who maintain this view, 
we may mention Bengel, Olshausen, and 
Tholuck, not to speak of others, equally 
acute, but not equally evangelical. But 
such a transition, so sudden and unan- 
nounced, is abrupt, unnatural, and at 
war with the most common principles 
of interpretation, which forbid such a 
change in the person of the speaker, 
unless one is forced thereto by the 
wants of the passage. There is noth- 
ing in the language which implies such 
a change ; and the sentiment, notwith- 
standing what the above named critics 
aver, is as appropriate in the mouth of 
the Baptist as of the Evangelist. Grant 
that the sentiment is in accordance 
with the style of the Evangelist, did 
not he obtain this conception of the 
relation of the Son to the Father from 
Christ's own lips, and probably at an 
early stage of his ministry ? Was not 
John the Baptist — enlightened as he was 
by the Spirit to declare of Jesus, that 
he was the Lamb of God which taketh 



62 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



32 And k what lie hath seen and 

AVer. ll;ch. 8: 26; & 15: 15. 

away the sin of the world (1 : 29, 36), 
and again that he was the Son of God 
(1 : 34), — one who might well be inspir- 
ed to add the more full testimony of 
the relation of the Son to the Father 
here recorded? No argument drawn 
from the diction and sentiments of the 
passage agaiust its being a continuation 
of the Baptist's discourse, is entitled to 
any weight, when opposed to the obvi- 
ous and natural coherency of thought 
which unites it to the foregoing con- 
text, as furnishing a reason why John 
must continue to wane before the Mes- 
siah, who had now appeared on earth, 
and whose origin was divine. He that 
comcth from above, i. e. whose advent 
is from heaven to earth. See v. 13. Is 
above all in knowledge, power, holiness, 
and official station. The sentiment is 
that John's rank was low in compari- 
son with that of the Messiah, even as 
the earth is lower than heaven. Hence 
it was not strange that he ■ should in- 
crease, while John should decrease. 
The word all, includes of necessity 
John himself, who is still further refer- 
red to in the general term, he that is of 
the earth, as opposed to he that comet h 
from heaven. Thus under these gene- 
ral expressions, John shows his own in- 
feriority to Jesus. Is earthly. The 
original is here a verbal repetition of 
the words translated of the earth, so 
that the literal rendering would be, he 
that is of the earth is of the earth. The 
first as opposed to he that cometh from 
above, denotes the origin ; the second 
of the earth, denotes the state, condi- 
tion, aims, and pursuits of one who is 
earth-born. There is therefore no tau- 
tology, when regard is had to the 
sense demanded by the antithesis be- 
tween the one of heavenly and the one 
of earthly origin. Speakcth of the 
earth. As all his pursuits and sources 
of knowledge are confined to earth, he 
can speak only of earthly things. He 
has no knowledge of heavenly things, 
only as they have been revealed to 
him. This finds its antithesis in the 
words, that he testifieth in v. 32. From 



heard, that he testifieth ; and no 
man receiveth his testimony. 



heaven is a varied and emphatic repeti- 
tion of from above, in the beginning of 
the verse, and like that clause is anti- 
thetic to the preceding words, of the 
earth. The collocation and repetition 
of the words are highly emphatic, espe- 
cially as contrasted with the declara- 
tion, that lie that is of the earth is earth- 
ly andspeaketh of the earth, which indi- 
cates human ignorance and weakness. 

32. What he hath seen and heard in 
heaven whence he came down to earth. 
The verbs seen and heard, refer to full 
and perfect knowledge. Testifieth is a 
stronger term than spcaketh in v. 31, 
which renders the unbelief, with which 
the testimony from such a source was re- 
ceived, the more strange and inexcusa- 
ble. The general idea is that when 
men speak of earthly things, they find 
enough who are willing to listen and 
give credence to their words ; but when 
one comes down from heaven, with full 
credentials of his divine origin and 
heavenly mission, and discourses to 
men of heavenly things, and testifies to 
the truth of what he relates, he finds no 
one to believe his words, so earthly, 
sensual, and inappreciative of divine 
things are they. The words no man, 
are rhetorically put for few men, 
scarcely any men, the speaker having 
in mind the exaggerated language, " all 
men come to him," made use of by his 
disciples in v. 2G. 

33. The sentiment of this verse is 
that he who receiveth this testimony, 
vouches thereby that God is true. The 
testimony is of that which has been seen 
and heard above, and refers here espe- 
cially to the Messiahship and divine char- 
acter of Jesus. He who believed this on 
the testimony of Jesus himself corrobo- 
rated by John's declaration (1 : 31), 
was a believer in the truth and veracity 
of God. The opposite was infcrentially 
true, that whoever rejected the testi- 
mony of Jesus, denied at the same 
time the truthfulness of God, so indi- 
visibly and .essentially united were the 
Father and Son. See 12:44. The 
great truth of Jesus Christ's supreme 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER III. 



63 



33 He that hath received Lis 
testimony ' hatli set to his seal 
that God is true. 

34 ■ For lie whom God hath 
sent speaketh the words of God : 
for God giveth not the Spirit " by 
measure unto him. 

35 ' The Father loveth the Son, 

l Eo. 3 : 4 ; 1 Jo. 5 : 10. 
m Ch. 7:16. 
jiCh. 1:10. 

divinity underlies all this reasoning ; for 
how otherwise would the rejection of 
Christ's word be a denial of God's ve- 
racity ? Hath set to his seal, i. e. has at- 
tested, as when one affixes a seal or 
mark upon any thing to denote its gen- 
uineness. Compare 2 Cor. 1 : 22. 

31. This verse shows why it is that 
belief in Christ's testimony is belief in 
God also. He whom God hath sent (i. e. 
the Messiah) speaketh the words of God, 
and hence to disbelieve the one is to 
disbelieve the other. If the words of God 
are believed as spoken by Jesus Christ, 
God is thereby declared to be true. 
The next clause for God giveth not the 
Spirit by measure to him, is designed to 
prove and illustrate the absolute truth 
and divinity of him, who came from 
above and speaketh the words of God. 
The expression by measure, refers to 
that which is dealt out sparingly, like 
food in a besieged city. The opposite 
to this is unlimited measure, a measure 
leaving no circumscribing limits, and 
this is declared to be the fulness of the 
gift of the Spirit, as bestowed upon 
Christ. This fulness of the Spirit which 
Christ at all times possessed, made his 
words the words of God. As it regards 
the fact that God is said to give the 
Spirit to Jesus Christ, it is to be refer- 
red like other similar expressions, to the 
subordination to the Father, which 
Jesus had as God-man, the Messiah, 
and not to his essential divinity. 

35. For the Father loveth, kc. This de- 
notes the ground or reason why the Spirit 
was given to Jesus without measure. 
Such was the love of the Father to the 
Son, that not only the fulness of the 
Spirit, but all things else had been 



' and hath given all things into 
his hand. 

36 * He that belie veth on the 
Son hath everlasting life : and 
he that believeth not the Son 
shall not see life ; but the wrath 
of God abideth on him. 

o Mat. 11 : 27 ; <fc 2S : IS ; Lu. 10 : 22; ch. 5 : 20, 

22: ^1^:3: & 17: 2: He. 2:8. 

£>Hab. 2:4; ch. 1:12: & 0:47; ver. 15, 16; 

Eo.l:lT;l Jo. 5: 10. 



given into his hand. On the expression 
hath given all things, see N. on Matt. 
11 : 27, where the same sentiment in a 
different connection is found. Into his 
hand, i. c. under his control and power. 
See Eph. 1 : 22 ; 1 Tim. 6:15; Ps. 2 : 
G; 45: 1. 

36. If the Son be exalted to such 
dignity and power, the result of be- 
lief or unbelief in his Avords, is the 
possession on the one hand of eternal 
life, and on the other, of the eternal 
endurance of God's wrath. In this 
verse we have, therefore, the conse- 
quence of the exaltation to which, in 
the preceding verse, Christ is declared 
to have been elevated. Hath everlasting 
life. The present tense here employed 
shows that the believer is in actual pos- 
session of eternal life, by the very act 
of faith in Christ, in reference to which 
it is bestowed. The verb rendered 
believeth not, carries with it also the 
sense of disobedience and rebellion 
against the rightful authority of God's 
Son. Shall not see life. The eternal 
banishment of the finally unbelieving 
and impenitent from God's presence 
and favor, is here taught beyond the 
possibility of doubt. The proof does 
not depend, as in other places, upon the 
words everlasting and eternal, which 
some wrest from their true meaning, to 
denote that which is of immense but 
not unlimited duration. The form of 
expression is one which no ingenuity 
of sophistry can divert from its true 
and simple meaning, shall not see life, 
that is, shall never partake of the bless- 
edness of heaven. This is rendered 
still more emphatic by the twofold form 
of expression, the negative and posi- 



64 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



CHAPTER IY. 

WHEN therefore the Lord 
knew how the Pharisees 
had heard that Jesus made and 
a baptized more disciples than 
John, 



tive, after the manner of John, when 
he would assert a thing, so as to leave 
no doubt or mistake as to its truth. 
The wrath of God abideth on the unbe- 
liever. It does not come upon him, for 
he that believetli not, is condemned al- 
ready (v. 18). The condemning sen- 
tence and wrath of God remains upon 
him, and as he has rejected the only- 
means of its removal, it will abide on 
him for ever. Dreadful result of im- 
penitence and unbelief ! 

CHAPTER IY. 

1-3. Jesus departs into Galilee. 
This journey took place soon after the 
imprisonment of John. See Matt. 4: 
12 ; Mark 1 : 14. Dr. Robinson says that 
this journey of our Lord must have 
been made in the latter part of Novem- 
ber or December, about eight months 
after the preceding Passover. If John 
the Baptist commenced his labors about 
the time of the Passover in the preced- 
ing year, his public ministry prior to the 
time of his imprisonment, must have 
continued a little more than a year and 
a half. 

1. The narrative is here resumed 
from 3 : 22. The Lord. This appella- 
tion of our Saviour is given to him by 
the Evangelist in its highest sense, and 
the article as in 11:2, gives the sense 
our Lord, a form of tender aifection, 
made use of by the apostles and early 
Christians, and retained as we know to 
the present time. Knew by his om- 
niscience, and probably also by infor- 
mation received from others. That the 
Pharisees had heard, &c. It is very 
clearly implied here, that the enmity of 
the Pharisees was already excited 
against our Lord, probably from what 
occurred at Jerusalem (see 2: 13-21). 
" His appearance as a reformer excited 
the opposition of the Pharisees, more 
than did the Old Testament activity of 



2 (Though Jesus himself bap- 
tized not, but his disciples,) 

3 He left Judea, and departed 
again into Gralilee. 



a Ch. 3 : 22, 26. 



the Baptist ; as Christ, however, regard- 
ed it as yet too soon to arouse more 
violently the spirit of persecution, he 
repaired to Galilee." Tholuck. That 
Jesus. The use of this name after the 
Lord, and its repetition in v. 2, are in 
accordance with the simplicity and per- 
spicuity of the writer's style. See Web- 
ster and Wilkinson. Winer says that 
Jesus is repeated, because the Evangelist 
wished to quote the express words 
which the Pharisees had heard. Made 
and baptized; literally, is making (i. e. 
gaining or acquiring) and baptizing, 
the tense conforming to the very terms 
in which the report was made. This is 
in accordance with the Greek idiom, 
which allows the direct as well as the 
indirect quotation to be introduced by 
the conjunction that, and imparts life 
and vivacity to the style. More disciples. 
See 3 : 26. It seems that the report 
of the increasing celebrity of Jesus, 
reached the Pharisees as well as John 
the Baptist, but was received by them 
in a far different spirit than by him. 

2. Though Jesus himself, &c. Our 
Lord refrained from personally ad- 
ministering the rite, either because he 
wished to give himself wholly to the 
work of teaching ; or in order that those 
who were baptized might be on an 
equality in this respect, none after- 
wards having occasion to boast that 
they had received the rite at the hands 
of Jesus himself. The former is the 
more probable reason. The reverse of 
this was true of John, who, as far as 
we know, always administered the rite 
of baptism himself. Departed again, 
&c. See 1 : 43. 

4-42. Our Lord on his Way to 
Galilee discourses with a Samaritan 
Woman. Many op the Samaritans 
believe on him. Shechem or JVeapolis. 

4. Must needs go through Samaria, 
(i. e. the region of Samaria), because it 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER IV. 



65 



4 And he must needs go through. 
Samaria. 

5 Then cometh he to a city of 



was the shortest route to Galilee, from 
the place where Jesus had been preach- 
ing. The Jews, in order to avoid go- 
ing through this hated country, were 
accustomed to make this journey 
through Perca, on the east side of 
Jordan. Our Lord had no such pre- 
judice, and it is to be noted that in 
passing through the Samaritan country, 
and especially in holding converse with 
the woman of Samaria and her towns- 
men on the subject of his mission, he 
did himself what he expressly forbade 
his disciples to do, when he sent them 
forth as related in Matt. 10 : 5. This 
is to be referred to his wise sovereign- 
ty, which chose this method to impress 
upon his followers the great truth, that 
salvation through his name was not 
confined to the Jews, but was provided 
for others, even the despised Samari- 
tans. At the same time, the restriction 
imposed upon his disciples not to enter 
any city of the Samaritans, gave that 
honor and precedence to the Jews, 
to which as descendants of Abraham, 
and heirs of the promises, they were 
entitled. Christ's visit therefore fore- 
shadowed the universal proclamation 
of the gospel, which was subsequently 
to be made by his followers to the 
Samaritans and Gentiles as well as to 
the Jews; the restriction in the first 
commission of the apostles, as given in 
Matt. 10 : 5, was to render prominent 
the fact, that in this proffer of eternal 
salvation through Christ, the Jew was 
to have the precedence, so far as the 
order of time was concerned. 

5. To a city, i. e. as far as the city. 
Of Samaria, belonging to the country 
of Samaria. The city of Samaria was 
about eight miles to the northwest of 
the place here referred to. Sychar 
is generally supposed to be a name 
given to the ancient Shechem, in con- 
tempt by the Jews, Sychar by derivation 
signifying a lie, a falsehood ; or perhaps 
the name gradually became changed 



Samaria, which is called Sychar, 
near to the parcel of ground b that 
Jacob gave to his son Joseph. 

o Ge. S3 : 10 ; & 4S : 22 ; Jos. 24 : 32. 



without any design. Its modern name 
is Nabulus or Xablus. From the abun- 
dant supply of water in Nablus, Dr. 
Thomson (Land and Book, vol. ii. p. 
206) thinks it incredible that the wo- 
man of Samaria would go two miles 
from the delicious fountains of the 
place, to draw water out of an im- 
mensely deep well, and therefore comes 
to the conclusion that Sychar was not 
the ancient Shechem, but must have 
been a small Samaritan town not far 
from the spot, perhaps the village north 
of it now called Aschar. Tholuck 
seeks to avoid the difficulty here start- 
ed by Dr. Thomson, by supposing that 
the woman came from the neighbor- 
hood of the city, the expression woman 
of Samaria meaning only a Samaritan 
woman. But in vs. 28, 30, it is clearly 
indicated, that the woman was a res- 
ident of the city to which she returned, 
and well known to its inhabitants. 
Even if she lived a short distance from 
the city, would it not have been easier 
for her to have filled her vessel from 
some one of the numerous springs 
there, than to have resorted to a well, 
from which water had to be raised 
nearly one hundred feet to the sur- 
face ? The difficulty is not therefore 
removed by Tholuck's suggestion, which 
of itself, as above stated, is quite im- 
probable. Near to the parcel of ground 
(i. e. field) that Jacob, &c. It appears 
from Gen. 33 : 19, that Jacob bought 
a field of the family of Shechem, and 
there spreading his tent remained for 
some time. As this was the place 
w T here Joseph's bones were buried, it 
became the inheritance of the sons of 
Joseph (Josh. 24 : 32). Prom this cir- 
cumstance, doubtless, arose the tradi- 
tion that Jacob gave the parcel of 
ground to Joseph ; although some at- 
tribute it to the mistranslation by the 
LXX. of Gen. 48 : 22. 

6. Jacob's well. This well is about 
nine feet in diameter, and nearly one 



66 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



6 Now Jacob's well was there. 
Jesus therefore, being wearied 
with his journey, sat thus on the 
well : and it was about the sixth 
hour. 

7 There cometh a woman of 
Samaria to draw water : Jesus 
saith unto her, Give me to drink. 

8 For his disciples were gone 



hundred feet deep. Dr. Jacobus says 
that when he visited it, he found the 
well's mouth closed by a huge stone, 
and it was quite dry. When Maun- 
drell visited it, however, in the month 
of March, it had fifteen feet of wa- 
ter. All who visit the well wonder 
at its having been dug, when there is a 
fine fountain a little to the west of it ; 
besides that the whole vale of Nablus 
abounds in fountains beyond almost 
any other part of Palestine. It is 
difficult to go back however several 
thousand years, and argue from the 
present state or appearance of things, 
what were the wants and necessities of 
those large families like that of Jacob, 
who with their numerous herds and 
flocks, were removing from place to 
place, and staying only so long in one 
locality, as the pasturage would suffice 
for the wants of the animals in which 
their wealth principally consisted. The 
springs in the vale may have been so 
appropriated, that Jacob could have no 
access to them ; or perhaps he chose to 
sink a well on his own ground, near by 
his own tent, both for convenience, 
and as a monument of his ability to 
obtain water, independent of the usual 
sources of supply. Being wearied by 
the long journey which he had perform- 
ed on foot. Sat would have been 
better rendered sat down, or seated 
himself. The word thus, has reference 
to the weariness just spoken of, and 
may be taken in a causal sense, on this 
account, in consequence of being thus 
fatigued. The words upon the well, are 
usually referred to the well curb, upon 
which a weary traveller might sit ; or 
we may render the passage by or near 
the well. As the sixth hour (i. e. noon) 



away unto the city to buy 
meat. 

9 Then saith the woman of Sa- 
maria unto him, How is it that 
thou, being a Jew, askest drink 
of me, which am a woman of 
Samaria ? for the e Jews have no 
dealings with the Samaritans. 

c 2 Ki. 17 : 24 ; Lu. 9 : 52, 53 ; Ac. 10 : 28. 



was an unusual hour of the day for a 
female to come for water, in the present 
instance it may have resulted from 
some accident, by which the morning's 
supply had been consumed or lost. 
John seems to have designated the 
particular time, in order to show that 
there was sufficient space of time left 
for the occurrences referred to in the 
narrative, especially the one spoken of 
in vs. 29, 30. 

7. A woman of Samaria, i. e. a Sa- 
maritan woman. To draw tvater. See 
v. 11. Give -me to drink. This is 
another evidence of the weariness and 
faintness of Jesus in consequence of 
the journey. 

8. This verse is parenthetic, being 
designed to show why Jesus was de- 
pendent upon the woman for a drink 
of water, his disciples having with them 
the vessel with which water was drawn 
from wells or fountains. Were gone ; 
literally had gone. Unto (more literally 
into) the city of Sychar. See JS". on v. 5. 

9. These words were doubtless spok- 
en before she complied with his request. 
Stier however thinks that she had 
already drawn her water, before Jesus 
addressed her as here related. In her 
surprise, she at once exclaimed, how is 
it that thou being a Jew, &c. Inter- 
course between the Jews and Samaritans 
was not absolutely forbidden, as is evi- 
dent from the request of Jesus and this 
reply of the woman. There was, how- 
ever, so little intercourse, and so seldom 
were any favors asked, especially on 
the part of the Jews, that when Jesus 
simply requested from her a drink of 
water, it was so unusual a thing as to 
fill her with surprise. Alford thinks 
that her speech was also one of triumph. 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER IV 



67 



10 Jesus answered and said un- 
to her, If thou knewest the gift 
of Grod, and who it is that saith 



d Is. 12 



&U: 



i; Jo. 2:13; Zee. 13:1; & 
14:3. 



that a Jew was reduced to such straits, 
as to be obliged to ask a favor of one 
who belonged to a people so despised. 
Being a Jew. She doubtless knew him 
by his speech and dress. For the Jeics, 
&c. These are the words of the Evan- 
gelist, and show why she asked the 
question. The article is wanting in the 
original, and should have been omitted 
in our translation, for Jews have no 
dealings with Samaritans. The verb 
have no dealing* (literally, do not use 
together or at the same time, i. e. have 
no intercourse), must be understood 
rather of familiar and friendly inter- 
course, than of business and trade, for 
the disciples had gone at this very time, 
into the Samaritan city to buy pro- 
visions. Intercourse even in the way 
of business, was doubtless restricted to 
that which resulted from necessity. 
See Xs. on the parable of the Good 
Samaritan, Luke 10 : 30-12. 

10. How easy and natural does our 
Lord make the transition from water 
for the body, to that which is required 
for the soul. If the question of the 
woman was one of triumph (see X. on 
v. 9), that a Jew was compelled by cir- 
cumstances to ask a favor of a despised 
Samaritan, it called forth a reply, which 
pat her in turn, had she known the of- 
fice and character of the Jewish stran- 
gei*, in the position of a suppliant for 
a boon, much more inestimable than a 
drink of water, even to one parched and 
dying through thirst. The imputa- 
tion of ignorance, on the part of the 
woman as to a gift of such value, was 
well adapted to excite her curiosity, 
and thus further the benevolent end 
which our Lord had in view. The form 
of the hypothetical if thou Jcnewest the 
gift, is, in the original, one which im- 
plies that the woman did not know the 
greatness of the gift which Jesus had 
in his possession. Gift of God. This 
expression has been variously explain- 
ed. Some refer it to the Messiah, who 



to thee, Give me to drink ; thou 
wouldest have asked of him, and 
he would have given thee d living 
water. 

was then present and conversing with 
her. The expression in that case, 
would be equivalent to, if thou Jcnewest 
who I am. Others give it this sense : 
'if you knew the favor you enjoy in 
the present opportunity of conversing 
with me.' The connection refers it evi- 
dently to the gift of living water, which 
was emphatically the gift of God be- 
stowed through the agency of His Spirit. 
The words gift of God, are placed here 
in evident contrast with that which was 
in the gift of the woman, namely, wa- 
ter from the well ; and must refer 
therefore to what is declared in the lat- 
ter part of the verse to be living water. 
The sentiment clearly deducible from 
the antithesis is this: 'You are now 
priding yourself on the conferral of a 
small favor upon one who is a Jew ; but 
if you knew that the water of life, which 
is the gift of God, was in the possession 
of him who addresses you, you would 
become the eager suppliant, although 
by thus doing you would ask a favor 
even of a Jew.' Water was the gift of 
God, yet it was bestowed through hu- 
man agency ; salvation from sin was 
directly and solely the gift of God, and 
hence is here so denominated. So 
"Webster and Wilkinson refer the gift 
here spoken of to salvation, and all its 
blessings in and through Him. See 
Eom. 5 : 15, 11 ; 2 Cor. 9:15. Who it 
is, &c. refers to what the woman had 
said thou being a Jew, and intimates 
that he was more than an ordinary per- 
son, which is followed in v. 26, by an 
open avowal of his Messiahship. The 
condescension of our Lord, in thus 
making known to this Samaritan wo- 
man, what he left others to gather 
from his miracles is worthy of note. 
The gradual and progressive method 
of instruction and spiritual illumination, 
should serve as a model for all his fol- 
lowers, when called to combat with ig- 
norance and prejudice, in those whom 
they seek to bring to the knowledge of 



68 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



11 The woman saith unto him, 
Sir, thou hast nothing to draw 
with, and the well is deep : from 

Christ. Two things are here brought 
especially to this woman's notice, the 
gift of God, and the divine character of 
the one who was addressing her, infer- 
red from the fact, that in his possession 
was this gift. Here in the very outset 
was an avowal of his Messiahship, hard- 
ly less plain and explicit than the one 
made in v. 26. The woman however 
did not yet understand its full import. 
Who it is is a modest form of expres- 
sion for who I am, and comported well 
with the humility of our Lord, which 
never appears greater than when, as 
here, he is revealing the great truth of 
his supreme divinity. The pronoun in 
thou wouldest have asked of him, is em- 
phatic and implies an omitted antithe- 
sis: whereas /have asked of you. Liv- 
ing water, i. e. running water as op- 
posed to that which lies stagnant in 
pools, cisterns, &c. As antithetic here 
to the water of the well on the curb of 
which he sat, our Lord uses it in a 
figurative sense of that which is spirit- 
ually refreshing or life-giving. The 
woman, however, caught only its com- 
mon and literal sense, and hence refer- 
red in her reply to the water in the 
well, which in her estimation was the 
best specimen of living water. Apart 
from the main contrast between the 
water, which it was in the respective 
power of the woman and of Jesus to 
grant, there is in the original an em- 
phasis in the pronoun thou, which im- 
plies that if the woman had known the 
value of the gift in his possession, she 
would have been the first to break 
through the bounds of non-intercourse 
between the Jews and Samaritans, and 
ask the boon of him. The readiness to 
grant this gift in his possession, is pre- 
sented in contrast with her hesitation, 
if not unwillingness, to give him water 
from the well, in the words he would 
have given thee living water. Thus this 
verse establishes the pre-eminence of 
the gift in Jesus' possession, the dignity 
of the donor, and the fact that his be- 
ing a Jew did not prevent its being 



whence then hast thou that liv- 
ing water ? 



conferred upon a Samaritan even, in 
case it was applied for with a due sense 
of its importance to the welfare of the 
soul. 

11. Sir; literally. Lord. The dig- 
nity and solemnity with which our Lord 
uttered the preceding words, impressed 
the woman with a sense of respect, 
which she had not felt, or at least man- 
ifested at the commencement of the 
conversation. She has not yet reached, 
however, the full depth of his meaning, 
cither in regard to his own personal 
dignity, or the nature of the living wa- 
ter which he claims to have in his gift. 
She therefore resorts to a sort of inqui- 
sitive quibbling, as to the impossibility 
of his making good what he had averred. 
She does not honestly and frankly ask 
him what he means by the words he 
had just uttered, but seeks to draw 
him out, by proposing the difficulties 
in the way of his obtaining water from 
the well, to which she purposely re- 
stricts his promise to supply her with 
living water, on condition of her asking 
for it. In this whole interview, the 
woman shows herself to be shrewd and 
observing, and in no wise disposed to 
yield a point, unless compelled thereto 
by arguments and reasons which admit- 
ted of no reply. 

Hast nothing (literally no vessel, buck- 
et) to draw with. As has been remarked 
(N. on v. 8), the disciples had in charge 
all the vessels suitable for drawing 
water from wells or fountains. The 
well is deep (see N. on v. 6), which 
would prevent the obtaining of any wa- 
ter thence, unless by means of a buck- 
et. She proceeds, therefore, to inquire 
whence he had (i. e. was able to obtain) 
the living water of which he spoke. 
With the utterance of the question, 
her pride is aroused at the bare suppo- 
sition that better water could be fur- 
nished than from the well, which had 
supplied the wants of the patriarch 
Jacob and his family. In language 
savoring of reproof, she asks our Lord, 
if he pretends to be superior to Jacob, 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER IV. 



69 



12 Art thou greater than our 
father Jacob, which gave us the 
well, and drank thereof himself, 
and his children, and his cattle ? 

13 Jesus answered and said 
unto her, Whosoever drinketh of 
this water shall thirst again : 

by supplying better water than that 
which sufficed for his wants. The 
original form of expression is the water, 
that (which is) living. It seems to de- 
note the indecision of the woman as to 
attaching the qualifying word living, to 
the water of which the stranger had 
spoken ; but not feeling satisfied with 
the rejection of so important an epithet, 
she finally utters it, and thus unwit- 
tingly gives it that position which in the 
Greek is most emphatic. See N. on 
1 : 9. 

12. The pronoun in art thou, is em- 
phatic, and contrasts the unknown 
Jewish stranger, with the illustrious 
and well known patriarch who is here 
named. Greater in worth and dignity. 
Her eye may have been on our Lord's 
words, who it is, &c. in v. 10. Our 
father Jacob. She arrogates to the 
Samaritans a direct descent from Jacob, 
and by the pronoun our, which is here 
emphatic, she virtually excludes the 
Jews from all family membership. 
Some expositors, however, find nothing 
more in our, than a community of the 
Samaritans with the Jews, in the honor 
and privilege of calling Jacob their 
father. According to Josephus (Antiq. 
IX. 14 § 2 ; XL 8"§ 6), they pretended 
to have derived their descent from 
Joseph. Which gave us this toell, as his 
lineal descendants and rightful heirs. 
Here again she brings out her strong 
Samaritan nationality. She refers per- 
haps to the reputed gift of this field 
and well to Joseph (see N. on v. 5), 
from whom, as above cited from Jo- 
sephus, the Samaritans claimed to have 
descended. And drank thereof himself, 
thus showing his sense of the excellency 
of the water. ' Xow art thou a greater 
or better judge of what is good water, 
than Jacob, who at such pains dug this 



whosoever drinketh of 
that I shall give him 



14 But 
the water 

shall never thirst ; but the Water 
that I shall give him / shall be in 
him a well of water springing up 
into everlasting life. 



oCh. 6:35, 58. 



/Ch. 7:3S. 



deep well, and drank thereof both he 
and his children, and as an evidence of 
its abundant supply, his cattle also ? ' 
This was intended as a final and unan- 
swerable argument, as to the superior 
qualities of this well over any well, 
fountain, or cistern, to which the Jewish 
traveller might have access. 

13. Our Lord in his reply does not 
depreciate the excellence of Jacob's 
well. He simply remarks what the 
woman, with all her zeal for the honor 
of the well, could not but admit, that 
its water would only temporarily quench 
thirst ; whereas the water which was 
his to give, if once taken, would ever 
after prevent thirst, and be a perennial 
fountain springing forth to everlasting 
life. Thus graciously did our Lord 
condescend to enlighten this woman, as 
to the object of his mission, to give 
spiritual life to all who should believe 
in his name. 

14. Whosoever drinketh, &c. In the 
corresponding phrase in v. 13, the pres- 
ent participle is employed denoting 
habitual or customary action, he that 
drinketh from time to time of the wa- 
%ev of this well. But here the par- 
ticiple is changed to a verb, and the 
tense is that which in Greek is employ- 
ed of an act considered as only once 
performed, he that once drinks. Our 
English translation overlooks this im- 
portant and significant change of con- 
struction. I shall give him. The third 
person now gives place to the first, the 
conversation having reached that point 
which demanded the most open free- 
dom and directness. The pronoun is 
emphatic : '/whom you regard as so in- 
ferior in dignity to your father Jacob.' 
A recurrence to v. 12 will show that 
in a tone of remark, which might al- 
most be characterized as rude, Jacob's 



70 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



15 9 The woman saith unto him, 
Sir, give me this water, that I 

g Ch. 6:34; &17:2, 3; Eo. 6:23; 1 Jo. 5:20. 

dignity had been referred to by the 
woman, as proof of the superiority of 
the water which he had provided for 
his posterity, over that furnished by 
any one, who had no more claims to sta- 
tion or pre-eminence than the stranger 
with whom she was conversing. Shall 
never thirst ; literally, shall not at all 
thirst forever, the expression being one 
of great emphasis. "It is equivalent 
to saying that he should always be 
capable of satisfying his spiritual need 
(6 : 85 ; Matt. 5 : 6), as is explained in 
the next sentence, where the indwell- 
ing of the Holy Ghost, the source of 
all spiritual blessedness, is denoted by 
the expression in him a well of water ; 
see 7: 38; 14: 17." Webster and Wil- 
kinson. But the water that I shall give 
him. This is not an unmeaning tautol- 
ogy, but is designed to give pre-emi- 
nence to the fact referred to in v. 10, 
that Jesus was the one in whose pos- 
session was this living w r ater. Shall be 
in him, &c. The idea is, that when once 
received into the soul, this water be- 
comes a perennial fountain, whence issue 
living streams to gladden and refresh 
God's children forever. Hence there 
is no occasion for a second supply, the 
soul being incapable of further thirst 
by the never-failing fountain of spirit- 
ual life within. This does not imply 
that the soul that has been refreshed 
with this wondrous water of life, is 
thereby rendered independent of God's 
continued and gracious assistance. The 
idea is simply that the reception of this 
water secures to the soul eternal bless- 
edness, becoming as it does through 
the grace of God, a perennial fountain 
of life, which effectually prevents the 
soul of the believer from relapsing into 
its previous state of thirst and spiritual 
death. Springing up ; literally, leaping, 
bounding, applied generally to the mo- 
tion of living beings, but here meta- 
phorically employed of the flowing 
forth of the water of life. So the 
words unto (into. Winer) everlasting 
life, are conformed to the idea of a 



thirst not, neither come hither to 
draw. 



stream of water, which rests not until 
it has reached the great ocean. Thus 
the water of salvation has a heaven- 
ward current, so that all who drink of 
the living stream, will eventually reach 
that place and be happy in the presence 
and love of God. This shows that 
never, in the preceding clause, is not to 
be explained simply of this life, but 
reaches forward to the life which is to 
come, and is a blessed negation of all 
spiritual thirst throughout the ages of 
eternity. So Tholuck : u Springing tip 
into everlasting life expresses, that 
death not only does not interrupt this 
life, this communion with God (11 : 25), 
but that it rather brings it to perfection." 
15. With this declaration of the 
wonderful virtues of the water which 
the Jewish stranger professed his ability 
to give, the Samaintan woman was so 
carried away, that she seemed no longer 
disposed to panegyrize Jacob's well, 
but exclaimed, as did the Jews in refer- 
ence to the bread of heaven (7 : 34), 
through a similar misapprehension as to 
its nature, Sir, give me this water. Had 
she stopped here, we might have hoped 
that she had obtained some insight into 
the spiritual import of our Saviour's 
words. But when she adds, that I thirst 
not, neither come hither to draw, she 
makes it manifest that she understands 
its reference to some spring or well, of 
whose hidden virtues this stranger had 
in some w r ay been made acquainted. 
In view of this she in turn becomes the 
suppliant, and our Lord might have re- 
torted upon her the reply which she had 
made (v. 9) to his request for water to 
allay his thirst. But he is too magnani- 
mous to make any allusion to her pre- 
vious discourteous reference to his 
request — a matter too trivial to in- 
terrupt a conversation tending to 
such high spiritual results — and in 
order to give her a more perfect knowl- 
edge of his mission, directs her to go 
and call her husband. She had asked 
for this water of life, although with lit- 
tle or no conception of its real nature 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER IT. 



71 



16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call 
thy husband, and come hither. 

17 The woman answered and 



said unto her, Thou hast well said, 
I have no husband : 

18 For thou hast had five hus- 



said, I have no husband. Jesus bands ; and he whom thou now 



and efficacy, and our Lord turns her 
not away. He commences to instruct 
and prepare her for the reception of 
the spiritual gift, which he was about to 
bestow upon her. The first step was 
to convince her of her personal ill- 
desert, and to show her that He who 
was thus dealing with her conscience, 
was One, who could read her heart, 
and was intimately acquainted with all 
the sins of her past life. Such we see 
from v. 29 was the effect produced upon i 
her mind, by the searching exposure of j 
her secret life, in the way here related. 

1G. The design of our Lord's direc- 
tion in bidding the woman call her hus- 
band, as has been said, was evidently 
to probe her conscience, and prepare 
the way for her reception of the truth, 
by bringing to light her past sinful 
course of life. The woman may at first 
have thought, that this direction was de- 
signed to let her husband share in the 
labor of bearing home this water so 
valuable in its properties. Come hither. 
She had expressed her wish to possess 
this wondrous water, in order that 
she might not be under any further ne- 
cessity of repairing to the well to draw, 
yet here was the place whither she was 
to come for the water of life. How 
gradually was she conducted by her 
divine instructor, from her low and 
material views of the blessing in his 
possession, to a spiritual conception of 
his office and mission. As to what 
some allege, that our Lord was igno- 
rant that she had no husband, his lan- 
guage by no means indicates this, but 
he assumes temporarily the fact, that she 
was not living out of lawful wedlock, in 
order to bring her to see and acknowl- 
edge her guilt. " He may have uttered 
the word with such a look and tone, as 
to convict the woman at once, and this 
is to us most probable." Stier. 

17. The woman's reply was literally 
true, and yet was not a full and ingen- 
uous confession of guilt. One who had 



been lawfully married, and was after- 
wards a widow, might have made the 
same reply. But our Lord by a single 
word, convinces her that deception of 
no sort can be practised upon him. 
Tliou hast well said, i. e. thou hast 
spoken the literal truth. Tholuck and 
Stier find a slight shade of irony in the 
word well, showing to the woman that 
he perceived the hesitating falseness of 
her half-confession. The word here ren- 
dered husband, literally signifies man, 
aud hence involves an ambiguity, which 
the woman seized upon in her reply. Her 
answer might have been interpreted, 
that she had no husband, or that she had 
no man with whom she was living in un- 
lawful connection. In his reply, Jesus 
holds her to the first sense, and reaf- 
firms the truth of her declaration that 
she had no husband, proceeding, how- 
ever, at once to show her in what sense 
he took the word man, by asserting 
that she had already been married to 
five husbands. In the repetition of the 
words of the woman I have no husband, 
Jesus changes the order to a husband I 
have not. This with a slight emphasis 
on husband, was designed to show the 
woman, that he was not ignorant of 
the relation which this man sustained 
to her. 

18. This verse contains the reason 
why the woman had well said she bad 
no husband. Thou hast had Jive hus- 
bands. These had been her lawful hus- 
bands, but in some way, either by their 
death, or by divorce, she had become 
free to marry again, and eventually 
formed the unlawful connection, in 
which she was now living with one who 
was not her husband. That there was 
some guilt attaching to her from the 
frequency of her marriage, is quite evi- 
dent from the general scope of our 
Lord's conversation with her, as well 
as from what is implied in her own 
words in v. 29. If her husbands died 
natural deaths, she evinced great and 



72 



JOHN. 



[A. D. SO. 



hast is not thy husband : in that 
saidst thou truly. 

19 The woman saith unto him, 
Sir, A I perceive that thou art a 
prophet. 

h Lu. 7: 16; & 24: 19; oh. 6: 14; & 7: 40. 

unbecoming haste to exchange her 
•widowhood for a renewed marriage 
state. Such a providence, as that 
which deprived her of these husbands 
so soon after marriage, would have led 
to retirement and reformation of life in 
a female of good repute, rather than to 
contracting in such eager haste new 
marriage alliances. The argument 
against her good name gathers still 
greater force, from the probability that 
she had been separated from some at 
least of her five husbands by divorce. 
" It is likely that many methods of dis- 
solving the nuptial bond had concurred 
here ; in any case there is indicated an 
immoderate passion in this woman, 
which could not be extinguished by 
any separation or widowhood." Stier. 
However all this may have been, it 
was just here that our Lord probed 
her conscience, and aroused her to a 
sense of sin and ill desert, from which 
she found no relief but in his pardon- 
ing love. Whom thou now hast, i. e. 
with whom thou art now living. Is 
not thy husband. There is no positive 
evidence that the woman was living 
with this man in adulterous intercourse, 
as all her husbands may have been 
dead. The connection was certainly 
an illicit one, and referred to as it was 
in such pointed terms, by one who 
showed himself conversant with all the 
things she ever did (v. 29), it served 
greatly to deepen the convictions of 
guilt, which the review of her past life 
had awakened. In that saidst thou 
tridy (literally, the truth). Alford takes 
notice that our Lord employs the truth, 
instead of truly, because reference is 
had to the one thing referred to, and 
not to the more general expression or 
spirit of her reply. So Winer : this 
hast thou spolcen true. 

19. Sir, I perceive, &c. She inferred 
correctly that from no source short of a 



20 Our fathers worshipped in 
1 this mountain ; and ye say, that 
in h Jerusalem is the place where 
men ought to worship. 



i Ju. 9 : 7. 
h De. 12 : 5, 11 : 1 Ki. 9 : 



2Ch. 7:12. 



divine revelation, could he, a stranger 
and a Jew, have become so intimately 
acquainted with the leading events of 
her life. See v. 29. The pronoun 
thou in thou art a 'prophet, is emphatic 
in the original, the woman recurring to 
the disparaging use she had made of it 
in her question art thou greater, &c. in 
v. 12. The original Greek brings out 
all these shades of emphasis, beyond 
the power of the English to express 
without circumlocution. 

20. Expositors are by no means 
agreed, as to the spirit and intent of 
this apparently abrupt change of the 
subject on the part of the woman. 
Some attribute it to a desire on her 
part to dismiss a theme, so unpleasant 
as the retrospect of her past life would 
furnish. So Ebrard : "Profoundly 
ashamed, and brought to a piercing 
sense of sin, she is disposed in the 
natural whirl of her thoughts, to break 
off the present subject." Others think 
that her natural love of discussion 
was awakened by finding that she had 
fallen in with one, who gave such 
evidence that he was a prophet or re- 
ligious teacher of no ordinary rank. 
But her acknowledgment of him as a 
prophet, in view of the intimate knowl- 
edge he had of her past life, does not 
justify us in supposing that she would 
have been so rude, as to change the 
whole tenor of the conversation, or 
seek to engage in a controversy with 
one, who in the brief words he had ut- 
tered, gave evidence that he knew well 
the most secret acts of her life. For 
her to suppose that she could divert 
the mind of this grave stranger from 
her sinful life, by starting captious 
questions in regard to the religious 
differences of the Jews and Samaritans, 
would argue not only that she was a 
hardened -and thoughtless person, but 
destitute also of ordinary discernment. 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER IV. 



73 



21 Jesus saith unto her, "Wo- 
man, believe me, the hour com- 
eth, ' -when ye shall neither in this 

I prefer therefore to assign to her 
words a more worthy motive, than, 
either a desire to evade the rebuke to 
which she was exposed from her past 
misconduct, or to indulge in her natural 
love of controversy. She sought to be 
enlightened on a point, which in her 
present state of mind, stood directly in 
the way of her intelligent worship of 
God. If the Jews were right in main- 
taining that worship acceptable to God, 
could be performed only at Jerusalem, 
how could she, a Samaritan, perform 
those acts of devotion, which were the 
necessary accompaniment of a life of 
piety? She wished to be instructed on 
this point, and she honestly made 
known the difficulty under which her 
mind labored. Had her language 
evinced a- disputatious spirit, or a desire 
to ward off convictions of sin, she would 
have been rebuked by our Lord. But 
there is not the least indication of 
censure in his reply. It was the kind 
language of instruction, adapted to re- 
move the very doubts and difficulties, 
under which, as has been remarked, 
her mind must have been laboring. 
There can be little doubt, that her at- 
titude, at this time, was that of a con- 
victed sinner, inquiring the way to 
God, and how He might be acceptably 
worshipped. The preceding verse was 
a virtual confession to Jesus, that her 
life had been such as he had briefly 
described it, and she proceeds to in- 
quire how she may come to God, whose 
prophet the Jewish stranger has shown 
himself to be. 

Our fathers undoubtedly refers to the 
ancient patriarchs, although some ex- 
positors think that the expression de- 
notes their more immediate Samaritan 
ancestors. But this would be an aban- 
donment of the vantage ground, which 
the Samaritans had in the greater anti- 
quity of their place of worship, com- 
pared with Jerusalem ; which city did 
not come into the full possession of 
Israel, until the reign of David (2 Sam. 
Vol. III.— l 



mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, 
worship the Father. 

ZMal. 1:11:1 Ti.2:S. 



5 : G-9). It should be remembered 
also how readily the woman referredto 
Jacob, whom she had styled our father 
(v. 11), as having honored the well by 
partaking of its water, and bequeathed 
it to his descendants. In this mountain, 
i. e. Mount Gerizim, on which the 
Samaritans maintained that Abraham 
and Jacob had built an altar, and of- 
fered sacrifices upon it to God ; which 
was the reason why it was selected as 
the mountain, where blessings were to 
be pronounced (Deut. 27 : 12). It lay 
to the south of the vale of Nablvis, and 
Mount Ebal, to the north. Dr. Thom- 
son (Land and Book, vol. ii. p. 203) 
says that "near the eastern end the 
vale is not more than sixty rods Avide, 
and that just there the tribes may be 
supposed to have assembled, to hear 
the blessings and the curses read by 
the Levites. On Gerizim was erected 
the temple of the Samaritan people, 
where officiated a high priest, after the 
manner of the temple at Jerusalem. 
See Joseph. Antiq. XI. 8 §§ 2-4. This 
temple was destroyed by Hyrcanus 
(B. C. 129), after it had stood 200 
years. The ruins of this temple are 
still to be seen, and sufficiently attest 
its magnificence and greatness. Ye 
say, in opposition to our claim for the 
sanctity of this mountain. Is the place 
referredto in Deut. 12 : 5. Where men 
ought (according to the passage just 
quoted) to worship. The verb render- 
ed to worship, signifies to adore, but in 
so general a sense as to embrace every 
form of religious adoration. 

21. Our Lord replies to the woman 
that a dispensation is now about to be 
ushered in, in which ceremonial forms 
and prescribed places of worship, are to 
give place to a spiritual worship con- 
fined to no particular people or place. 
In this gracious annunciation he pro- 
fesses his claim to the title of prophet, 
which the woman had given him. 
Woman. He thus bespeaks her earnest 
attention. Believe me. This is the only 



74 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



22 Ye worship m ye know not 
what : we know what we wor- 

in 2 Ki. 17 : 22. 

instance in which our Lord makes use 
of this expression, his weighty declara- 
tions being usually introduced by verily 
I say unto you. His annunciation would 
fall so strangely on the ears of this 
woman, that he condescends to ask 
her full belief in what he was about to 
say. The truth here announced is one, 
with which in the light of God's word 
we are so familiar, that we are in dan- 
ger of not appreciating the great de- 
mand, which it made upon this woman's 
faith. The hour cometh. The time is 
at hand. See v. 23. Shall neither in 
this mountain (i. e. Gerizim), nor yet in 
Jerusalem, where was Mount Zion, and 
the temple on Mount Moriah. The idea 
is that these were not to be exclusive 
places of worship, all local distinc- 
tions being about to be removed under 
this new and spiritual dispensation. 
The Samaritans were not to be com- 
pelled to go to Jerusalem (see Acts 8 : 
14) ; nor on the other hand, were the 
Jews to resort to Mount Gerizim, 
as being the only acceptable place 
of worship. TJie Father. There can 
hardly be a doubt that our Lord em- 
ploys this word, which shows the pe- 
culiar relation subsisting between Him 
and the Son, primarily to unfold a great 
Messianic truth to the woman ; and 
perhaps also as a gentle hint, that there 
was one common Father, towards whom 
there subsisted relations of a much 
higher nature, than those to which she 
took such pride in referring (vs. 12, 20). 
The word has almost the sense of my 
Father, but is so expressed as to denote 
his paternal relation to all, Jews and 
Samaritans, and his being the only 
true Father, all earthly relations in com- 
parison with this being of no account. 

22. Having thus announced the ap- 
proach of a dispensation which would 
subvert all local claims of pre-eminence, 
even of Jerusalem itself, our Lord takes 
occasion to correct the erroneous views 
of the Samaritans, in regard to the 
question concerning which they had so 
long been at variance with the Jews. 



ship; for n salvation is of the 
Jews. 

n Is. 2 : 3; Lu. 24: 47 ; Eo. 9 : 4, 5. 

In v. 21, our Lord, as an arbiter be- 
tween the parties to the dispute, takes 
a position apart from either, and em- 
braces in the pronoun ye, both the Jews 
and Samaritans. But now he speaks as 
a Jew, and in reference to the point at 
issue, employs the pronouns ye Samari- 
tans, and we Jews. As Tholuck well 
remarks, Jesus could not be man in 
fact, without belonging to a distinct 
nationality. Ye worship. This pro- 
noun and the we following, are emphatic 
and in strong contrast. Ye know not 
what, i. e. you have no distinct concep- 
tion of the object or proper mode of 
worship. The views of the Samaritans 
in regard to the Messiah, were in some 
respects very erroneous, inasmuch as 
that personage was declared in prophe- 
cy to spring from the tribe of Judah ; 
a prophecy which they wholly ignored 
in claiming him to be of Samaritan 
origin. The word what, which in the 
original is neuter, and is therefore op- 
posed to a personal Deity, is to be 
taken in a very general and extensive 
sense, referring not only to their erro- 
neous conceptions of God, but to the 
whole religious views of the Samaritans, 
which were very defective. They re- 
ceived as their Scriptures only the Pen- 
tateuch, and hence had precluded them- 
selves from the religious instruction, 
which the Jews derived from the re- 
maining books of the Old Testament. 
This together with the superstitious and 
false views of God and his w r orship, 
which they had inherited from their 
heathenish ancestors, rendered true to 
the very letter our Lord's declaration, 
that they knew not what they worship- 
ped. Salvation is of the Jews. This is 
advanced as a proof that the Jews were 
intelligent worshippers of God. The 
argument is that the Jews had precept, 
in regard to their object and form of 
worship ; and as a proof of this, from 
them was to come the Messiah (Gen. 
49: 10, Isa. 10: 11), which necessarily 
implied their knowledge and worship 
of the true God. Salvation; literally, 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER IV. 



75 



23 But the hour cometh, and 
now is, when the true worship- 
pers shall worship the Father in 

o Phi. 3 : 8. 

the salvation with reference to the Mes- 
siah, expectedalike by Jews andSamai'- 
itans, and hence here put, the abstract 
for the concrete, for the Saviour, the 
Messiah. See Ns. on Luke 1:69; 2:39. 
It is employed doubtless in opposition 
to the low views, which the Samari- 
tans entertained of the coming Messiah, 
that he was to be merely a Prophet or 
great Teacher. In the use of this single 
word, our Lord poured a flood of light 
upon this woman's mind, in regard to 
the nature of his mission, and thus pre- 
pared her for the work of spreading 
the news of salvation among the in- 
habitants of her city. It is remarkable 
that in view of this revelation, which 
our Lord condescended to make of his 
office and mission into the world, the 
Samaritans seem to have reached higher 
and more spiritual views of his charac- 
ter, than his disciples themselves, at 
least until the closing days of his min- 
istry. The Samaritans were in gross 
ignorance compared with the Jews, but 
yet their prejudices against a spiritual 
Messiah were trifling, compared with 
those which blinded the Jews to the 
evidence, which our Lord so abundantly 
furnished, that his mission was to save 
men from their sins. See N. on v. 42. 
Of the Jews is stronger than from the 
Jeios, the idea being out of the midst of 
the expression being equivalent to a 
positive declaration, that the Messiah 
was to be a Jew and not a Samaritan. 

23. Jesus now recurs again to the 
spiritual worship, which God demands 
from all his creatures. But the hour 
cometh. See N. on v. 21. And now is. 
This is added to show that the spiritual 
worship was already established. The 
woman is kindly informed, that there is 
no necessity of her resorting to Jerusa- 
lem to render acceptable worship to 
God, which she may have inferred from 
what was stated in the preceding verse 
that salvation was of the Jews. Our 
Lord declares that henceforth God 



spirit p and in truth ; for the Fa- 
ther seeketh such to worship 
him. 

p Ch. 1 : IT. 



would have all his worshippers approach 
him in the sincerity of spiritual devo- 
tion, without regard to external forms 
or prescribed places of worship. The 
hour was coming, when this great truth 
would be illustrated and confirmed by 
his death for the salvation of the world, 
and would be publicly proclaimed by 
his followers, as the gospel of good tid- 
ings for all mankind. True worshippers, 
i. e. those who are free from all 
formalism and hypocrisy. In spirit is 
opposed to mere external forms of 
worship. So in truth is opposed to the 
hypocrisy that conceals its true char- 
acter by an outward show of piety. 
The preposition in denotes, as it were, 
the clement in which the worship here 
spoken of is exercised. This imparts 
to the passage a deep significancy, and 
shows what constitutes the sincere 
worship of the heart, as opposed to 
every thing formal and pretentious. It 
need hardly be said, however, that our 
Lord does not here or elsewhere decry 
such forms and observances, as are 
suitable and necessary to the wants of 
orderly religious worship. But these 
are never to be substituted for that 
true and humble devotion, which has 
its seat in the heart renewed and sanc- 
tified by the indwelling Spirit of God. 
For the Father seeketh, &c. This is 
both confirmatory of the preceding sen- 
timent, and an encouragement to all who 
are timid in appropriating to themselves 
the glorious and fundamental truth 
here uttered. The discourse is not 
here of the relations between God and 
his creatures, which form the ground 
and necessity of this spiritual worship ; 
or of God's requirements that his wor- 
shippers shall thus approach him. This 
would make the spiritual worship here 
spoken of one of simple duty. But the 
Father seeketh this spiritual approach 
to him. He earnestly desires that his 
worshippers shall possess this character. 
The woman need not fear in thus wor- 



76 



JOHN". 



[A. D. 30. 



2-i q G-od is a Spirit : and they 
that worship him must worship 
him in spirit and in truth. 

25 The woman saith unto him, 
I know that Messias cometh, 

shipping God, that she would do other 
than what was in accordance with his 
infinite pleasure. The inference is 
however clear, that if God seeks such 
to worship him, He will reject all who 
refuse to come to Him in the way here 
proposed. Such spiritual worshippers. 
To worship him; literally, as his wor- 
shippers. The character of God's true 
worshippers, rather than any specific 
act, is referred to. 

24. This verse denotes the great and 
fundamental reason, why God desires 
and demands spiritual worship. He is 
Spirit, not matter. His all-pervading 
presence renders one place as suitable 
as another for his worship. His omnis- 
cient eye sees the heart of man, and 
discerns its most secret motives, 
thoughts, and purposes. If the sincer- 
ity of the heart be wanting ; if " truth 
in the inward parts" (Ps. 51 : 6) does 
not characterize his worshippers, their 
approach to Him is a mere sham and 
vain pretence. The Great Spirit can 
be worshipped only by the spirit of 
man. Where this is wanting, mere ex- 
ternal devotion is as ineffective, as 
though the worshipper were a clod of 
inanimate matter. Hence the essential 
relation of God as a Spirit to man, pos- 
sessed also of a spirit, is such that man's 
spirit is the only part of him, which can 
approach God in true worship. From 
the spiritual essence of God, the infer- 
ence then is irresistibly drawn, that 
they that worship him must worship 
him in spirit and in truth. The orig- 
inal of this great passage is very striking, 
Spirit (is) God. The contrast is thus 
rendered very emphatic, between Him 
and every thing gross and material, hav- 
ing fixed and local habitations, like the 
heathen divinities. A similar sentiment 
is found in Acts 7 : 48 ; 17 : 25. They 
that worship him, &c. This is an infer- 
ence from the spiritual essence of God, 
asserted in the preceding clause. It is | 



which is called Christ : when he 
is come, r he will tell us all 
things. 

g 2 Co. 3 : 17. 
r Ver. 29, 30. 

a repetition of what was declared in 
the preceding verse, and rendered 
strongly emphatic, by its being a de- 
duction from the very nature and 
essence of the divine mind. 

25. The reply of the woman was not 
one of unbelief, or a desire to divert 
the conversation from her own in- 
dividual condition, but of joyful anti- 
cipation of the times of the Messiah, 
when all these matters should be 
explained, and whatever was obscure 
cleared up. The Samaritans in common 
with the Jews, believed in a coming 
Messiah, but regarded him less in the 
light of a temporal king, than of a great 
prophet (Deut. 18 : 15, 18), who would 
settle all points of controversy, rectify 
that which was wrong, revise and re- 
construct the social organization, and, 
in a word, introduce a new order of 
things. It is thought by some ex- 
positors, that the woman had some 
suspicion awakened in her mind, that 
he who was thus conversing with her 
was the Messiah, and that she address- 
ed him with these words, in order to 
draw from him some expression, which 
would solve her doubts on this point. 
But I can hardly think, that she had 
yet surmised that he was more than an 
eminent prophet or religious teacher. 
It cannot be denied, however, that the 
turn of conversation had awakened in 
her mind thoughts of the Messiah. 
So Lange : " His words had quickened 
the miserable germ of Samaritan Mes- 
siah-hope into life." Which is called 
Christ. These words which are wanting 
in the Syriac version, are regarded by 
many critics, as those of the Evangelist, 
added for the sake of explanation to 
his Gentile readers. But I agree with 
Alford, that in that case, we should 
have expected in v. 29, the Messias 
instead of the Christ. His explanatory 
clauses are also introduced in a differ- 
ent way. See 1 : 42 ; 19 : 13, 17. It 



A. D. SO.] 



CHAPTER IV. 



77 



26 Jesus saith unto her, I s that 
speak unto thee am he. 

27 And upon this came his dis- 
ciples, and marvelled that he 



is quite probable that the Greek word 
Christ, had begun to be used in com- 
mon parlance for 3fessias, of which it 
was the translation, and that the woman 
employed both forms, in the usual 
vcrboseness of free conversation. Will 
tell ; literally, will announce, declare as 
an authorized interpreter of the will 
and purpose of God. It conforms to 
the Samaritan idea, that new revelations 
were to be made by the Messiah. All 
things in regard to the object and forms 
of religious worship. The revelation 
of the Messiah in the Pentateuch, was 
simply that of a Prophet. Hence the 
Samaritans, who acknowledged the au- 
thority of this portion of the Scriptures 
only, did not fall into the error of the 
Jews in supposing, as they did from 
the prophetic writings, that Christ was 
to be a great temporal conqueror and 
king. But from their possession and 
acknowledgment of only a portion of 
the Old Testament, they fell into the 
opposite and almost equally great error, 
of making the functions of the Messiah 
only those of a prophet or religious 
teacher, ignoring altogether his kingly 
and priestly character. 

26. Our Lord now condescends, in 
the plainest and most unequivocal 
terms, to declare himself the Messiah. 
It is useless for us to inquire why at so 
early a stage of his public ministry, he 
thus made himself known to this Sa- 
maritan woman, and in directness of 
language, such as he scarcely at any 
time employed with his disciples. There 
were reasons for this probably in the 
peculiar position of the Samaritans, 
who with far less light than the Jews, 
in whose possession were the whole 
scriptures of the Old Testament, had 
more spiritual views of the Messiah, 
and were in a more advanced state to 
receive the annunciation of his advent. 
But the reason for this open declara- 
tion of his Messiahship to this poor sin- 
laden woman, must after all be referred 



talked with the woman : yet no 
man said, What seekest thou ? or, 
Why talkest thou with her ? 

s Ch. 9 : 3T ; Mat. 26 : C3, G4 ; Ma. 14 : 61, 62. 

to his infinite and sovereign pleasure, 
which chose her and her fellow-towns- 
men to be the depositaries of this great 
truth, not yet openly revealed to his 
own beloved disciples, i" that speak 
unto iJtcc am he; literally, I am (he) 
who am speaking unto you. The pro- 
noun in the original, refers this great 
declaration and profession of Messiah- 
ship most emphatically to Jesus him- 
self. 'I, a stranger to you, one who in 
his weariness and thirst asked of you a 
drink of water, with no retinue, pomp 
or display, a plain man, am He the 
Messiah.' Some think that our Lord 
hastened to make this annunciation, on 
account of the near approach of his 
disciples (see v. 27). But there is no 
abruptness in the discourse, indicating 
that he hastened to declare a truth, 
which would have been approached in 
a more gradual and orderly manner, 
had he not been in danger of interrup- 
tion from his disciples. All that can 
be said is, that it so happened, that just 
as he made this sublime declaration of 
his Messianic office to the woman, his 
disciples came up as here related. This 
leaves the discourse uninterrupted and 
complete, and makes no unnatural 
chasm or sudden breaking off, through 
any premature disclosure of the great 
truth, which our Lord was gradually 
preparing the woman to receive. The 
words who am speaking to you, evident- 
ly are designed to refer to what the 
woman had said in v. 25, respecting 
the Messiah, as the Revealer of great 
religious truths. Our Lord informs her 
that she has been all this while receiv- 
ing from his lips, the very revelation 
which she was expecting from the Mes- 
siah. 

27. Upon this, i. e. at the very time 
he said this. It does not necessarily 
imply, that they heard the declaration 
of his Messiahship. The woman may 
have received this annunciation in pro- 
found and wondering silence ; and be- 



78 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



28 The woman then left her 
waterpot, and went her way into 
the city, and saith to the men, 

29 Come, see a man, ' which told 

fore she had so far recovered herself as 
to make any reply, the disciples came 
up. This is the most natural view of 
the case. Marvelled. The tense of 
this verb denotes their remaining fixed 
in silent astonishment. With the xoom- 
an. The absence of the article in the 
original, has led some to translate 
with a woman. Such expositors find 
the principal ground of surprise, that 
our Lord should have so far transgress- 
ed the laws of general decorum, at 
least according to Rabbinical propri- 
ety, as to converse with a woman alone 
at a public well. This seems to be the 
view of Tholuck and Stier. But in the 
first place, the criticism overlooks the 
well-established grammatical law, that 
the omission of the article after the 
governing preposition, imparts no in- 
definiteness to the noun. The transla- 
tion of our common version is there- 
fore correct. It was not that Jesus 
was with a woman, which excited the 
wonder of his disciples, but that he 
should hold familiar converse with this 
particular woman, who was evidently a 
Samaritan, with whom the Jews had 
such dealings as resulted only from ab- 
solute necessity. They had caught 
only his very last words if any, and 
therefore had no positive knowledge of 
the subject of their conversation ; but 
there was doubtless an earnestness in 
his address, and a deep, fixed, wonder- 
ing attention on the part of the woman, 
which arrested their attention and ex- 
cited their surprise. Yet no man (lite- 
rally, no one) said, &c. There was no 
doubt a majesty and dignity in the as- 
pect of our Lord, who had just reveal- 
ed to the woman his Messiahship, which 
awed his disciples into silence, and re- 
strained them from proposing such 
questions to the woman, as what seekest 
thou, or to Jesus, why talkest thou with 
her. The phrase what seekest thou, 
which refers most probably to the wom- 
an, is equivalent to our what is your 



me all things that ever I did : is 
not this the Christ ? 

t Ver. 25. 



business ? or what is your object ? Some 
expositors refer both questions to our 
Lord, in the sense, what business can 
you have with this Samaritan woman, 
and why are you thus conversing with 
her? But this appears to be less natu- 
ral. Such was their reverence to their 
Master, that they did not presume even 
to ask the woman, why she had con- 
versed with Jesus, or what was her 
business with him. 

28. Then is not here temporal, but 
inferential therefore. The presence of 
the disciples gave the woman opportu- 
nity to leave Jesus, for the purpose of 
communicating this strange intelligence 
to her townsmen. Left her ivaterpot. 
How does this simple incident illustrate 
the ardor and haste, with which she 
flew with the strange and joyful news 
to her city. She lost sight altogether 
of the object for which she had come 
to the well. As Jesus preferred the 
doing of his Father's will to temporal 
food (v. 34), so this woman regarded 
the conveying of water from the well 
as of no account, in compai'ison with 
being the bearer of such news to her 
townsmen. Into the city of Sychar. To 
the men, i. e. her fellow-citizens. They 
were probably the leading men of the 
city. 

29, 30. Come, see a man, &c. " Come, 
see, and experience like myself, wheth- 
er this man be like other men, whether 
he be not what he declares himself to 
be— the Messiah." Stier. Which told 
me all things. In the excitement un- 
der which she labored, she speaks as 
though every circumstance of her life 
had been unveiled, although the leading 
events only were referred to by our 
Lord. These few words, however, had 
served to convince her, that no event 
of her life was concealed from his view; 
and what she reported to the men of 
her city was therefore virtually true. 
It is worthy of notice, that her first 
words have reference to the exposure 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER IV. 



79 



30 Then they went out of the 
city, and came unto him. 

31 In the mean while his dis- 



thus made of her sinful life ; and that 
she says nothing of what our Lord had 
declared respecting himself, but refers 
the proof of his Messiahship solely to 
his supernatural knowledge of her his- 
tory. Thus the Samaritans are induced 
to visit the stranger, not from the tes- 
timony which he bore of himself, but 
from that of the woman respecting him. 
The Messiah, when he came, was to tell 
them all things (v. 25). The Jewish 
stranger had evinced his power to do 
this, by his revelation of her past his- 
tory ; therefore he could be no other 
than the Christ which was to come. Is 
not this the Christ, is that form of ques- 
tion in the original, which implies a 
negative answer. The woman did not 
adopt this form, because she had any 
doubt herself as to the fact that Jesus 
•was the Messiah, but as a modest dis- 
claimer of being so presumptuous as to 
decide this question independent of the 
judgment of her townsmen. It also 
indicates that the report which she 
brought of a present Messiah, was too 
good news to be true. Thus it might 
be translated, like our suggestive form 
of interrogation, ' this is not the Christ, 
is he ? Can it be possible that the Mes- 
siah has come, and that I have seen and 
conversed with him ? ' Tlien went they 
oitt, kc. There seems to have been no 
delay on the part of these Samaritans, j 
As they went forth on the mere testi- | 
mony of this woman, it shows that she 
was a person of some influence and 
standing, despite her notorious charac- 
ter. Stier attributes the impulse which 
actuated the people, to the idea of fol- 
lowing such a woman to see such a man. 
" A man who could tell them all their 
sins, and yet make them so happy, as 
they already see this woman to be." 
Came ; literally, were on their way. 

31. While the woman was thus ab- 
sent on her mission to the men of her 
city, the disciples who had returned 
with provisions, urged him to refresh 
himself with food, previously to their 



ciples prayed him, saying, Mas- 
ter, eat. 



resuming their journey. He had become, 
however, so interested in the work of 
love thus providentially devolved upon 
him, that he was for the time insensi- 
ble to hunger and thirst. Stier calls 
the offering at this time of their earthly 
bread, " a very unseasonable interjec- 
tion of the disciples." So Tholuck : 
"the disciples here display precisely 
the same incapacity of soaring from the 
sensuous to the spiritual, which had 
been displayed by the woman." But 
while this was doubtless true, do we 
not see in their solicitude that he should 
refresh himself with food, the most ten- 
der devotedness and care for his phys- 
ical wants? Would not something 
have been wanting to this scene of love 
and spiritual ecstasy in the enjoyment 
of God's favor and the doing of His will, 
if the disciples had not, in their tender 
concern for his welfare, "prayed him, 
saying, Master, eat?" 

32. / have meat to eat, kc. The 
pronouns /and you are emphatic, and 
bring out in strong antithesis the pe- 
culiar mission of Jesus, which was 
above and beyond any thing which his 
disciples could share, or at that time 
comprehend. There is no blame in 
this reply, but only the declaration of 
a great principle, that while natural 
food is necessary, it is to be regarded 
as subordinate to the higher spiritual 
nourishment, derived from obedience 
to God and activity in his service. The 
word rendered meat, literally signifies 
an eating, and refers rather to nourish- 
ment for the time being, than the food 
itself, the means of that nourishment 
(see X. on v. 3-i). It is often employ- 
ed, however, in a metaphorical sense for 
that which is eaten. See 6 : 27 ; Rom. 
14 : 17 ; Col. 2 : 16. Know not of re- 
fers not only to the source whence this 
food was supplied, but to its essential 
properties. The disciples were at this 
time ignorant of the essential union of 
the Son with the Father, and the ineffa- 
ble delight which Jesus experienced in 



80 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



32 But lie said unto them, I 
have meat to eat that ye know 
not of. 

33 Therefore said the disciples 
one to another, Hath any man 
brought him aught to eat ? 

34 Jesus saith unto them, u My 

u Job23;12; ch. 6:33; & 17:4; & 19: 30. 
x Mt. 9 : 37 ; Lu. 10 : 2. 

doing his Father's will. Stier says that 
these words were uttered with a design- 
ed and exciting tone of mystery, which 
would prepare the way for a future 
disclosure. 

33. Therefore in consequence of this 
declaration, that he was in possession 
of nourishment of which they were 
in ignorance. Said the disciples, &c. 
Even in this eazdy stage of his ministry, 
there was a dignity in the bearing of 
our Lord, which repelled undue famili- 
arity, and checked all vain and frivolous 
questions. Hence they do not propose 
the question to him, Avhether any one 
in their absence had given him food to 
eat, but address the inquiry in low 
tones to one another. But our Lord 
knowing their conversation, conde- 
scended to enlighten them on the nature 
of this heavenly food, with which he had 
been refreshed during their absence. 
Hath any man ; literally, any one, there 
being a covert allusion to the woman. 
The word any one, in the original, is 
both masculine and feminine. The 
form of the question in the original, 
presupposes a negative reply, inasmuch 
as they were in the country of the 
Samaritans. See N. on 8 : 22. 

34. Our Lord now shows his disciples, 
that his words are to be taken in 
a spiritual, and not in a material sense. 
My meat. A different word is here 
employed, from that found in v. 32. 
There reference was had to the recep- 
tion or partaking of food ; here, to the 
food itself as the means of nourish- 
ment. Is to do, is literally that I may do, 
the reference being not only to his 
actual doing, but his governing purpose 
to do his Father's will. " The funda- 
mental thought is the joy which is 
experienced in doing with prospect of 



meat is to do the will of him that 
sent me, and to finish his work. 

35 Say not ye, There are yefc 
four months, and then cometh 
harvest ? behold, I say unto you, 
Lift up your eyes, and look on 
the fields ; ■ for they are white aL 
ready to harvest. 



continually doing ; the looking forward 
from the beginning, and at every step 
to the consummation of all labor." Stier. 
The word will, is here used in the sense 
which it has in Matt. 7 : 21, on which 
see Note. To finish (literally, that 1 
may finish), i. e. to bring to a full end 
or completion. The sentiment is par- 
allel to that of Luke 12 : 50, on which 
see Note. Our Lord had a work to 
accomplish, voluntary indeed on his 
part, yet, as related to the plan of 
redemption, rendering him subordinate 
to the Father who sent him, and indeed 
in the language of Scripture, reducing 
him to the condition of a servant. See 
Isa. 42:1, 19; 52:13; Zech. 3 : 8 ; 
Matt. 12 : 18; Phil. 2 : 7. Hence the 
work or service in which Christ was 
engaged, is called His work. 

35. Our Lord now illustrates the 
necessity of activity and zeal in his 
Father's service, from the analogies of 
a harvest, which when ready to be 
gathered in, must receive the prompt 
and undivided attention of the hus- 
bandman. The words say not ye, refer 
to a common and proverbial saying of 
a four months' waiting time between 
the sowing and the harvest, intended to 
designate for the encouragement of the 
husbandman, the short but fixed time 
which would intervene between the seed 
time and harvest. It is not necessary to 
the purpose for which this proverbial 
saying is here introduced, to suppose 
that when our Lord uttered it, there 
wanted four months to the harvest. The 
simple idea embodied in this very com- 
mon saying, is that the natural har- 
vest was to be waited for in patience, 
since until it had fully come, the sickle 
could not be thrust in. But not so 
the spiritual harvest. There wanted 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER IV. 



81 



36 y And he that reapeth re- 
ceiveth wages, and gathereth fruit 

y Da. 12 : 3. 

no four months to its approach. No 
proverb like that applied to the distant 
but sure approach of the natural har- 
vest, could be used respecting it. The 
fields were always white for the har- 
vest. The great work of gathering in 
souls for the service of God, and the 
enjoyment of His favor, was a present 
one, and would always be so to the end 
of time. The illustration from the 
natural to the spiritual harvest, is here 
one of contrast and not of resemblance. 
In the former, there must be a waiting 
for the harvest to mature ; in the latter, 
the grain was always ripe for the sickle. 
The pronoun ye, is put generically for 
the people, among whom this proverb 
was a familiar expression. 'Is it not a 
proverbial saying of ye Jews ? ' Lift tip 
your eyes, &c. The Samaritans may at 
this time have been seen in the dis- 
tance, approaching him from their city. 
To these our Saviour may have directed 
the attention of his disciples, as he 
uttered these words. They were in a 
state of readiness to hear and obey the 
truth. The field so far as they were 
concerned, was already white for the 
harvest. The word white, refers to the 
color of the stalk when the grain is 
fully ripened. Already is opposed to 
the four months, which marked the 
interval between seed time, or the 
springing forth of the tender blade, and 
the harvest. There is no such inter- 
vening time, between the sowing of the 
seed and the gathering of the harvest 
in the spiritual husbandry. The one 
follows the other in quick succession. 
Indeed the sowing of the spiritual seed 
is at times simultaneous with the har- 
vest, such a ready reception is given to 
God's truth, and so sudden and rapid is 
its transforming influence upon the 
heart. 

36-38. These verses are closely con- 
nected in sense, and it will be seen that 
a strictly logical order would require 
their inversion. Verse 38 discloses the 
fact, that the apostles had entered a 
Vol. III.— 4* 



unto life eternal : that both lie 
that soweth and he that reapeth 
may rejoice together. 

field of labor, on which a great prepa- 
ratory work had been performed by 
other and previous laborers. This ren- 
dered true the saying referred to in v. 
37, and the result of this division of 
labor w r as, that both he who performed 
the preparatory work of sowing, and 
he who followed with the sickle, were 
alike to rejoice in the fruit gathered 
unto life eternal. This is the sentiment 
of v. 36. But the inverted order of 
the argument renders the whole state- 
ment more emphatic and impressive, 
by carrying the mind from the impar- 
tial distribution of the reward of this 
service, back to the great principle 
which underlies the whole subject. The 
close and logical connection which sub- 
sists between these verses, will be seen 
more fully in the explication which fol- 
lows. 

36. He that reapeth, &c. The figure 
of a spiritual harvest is here continued. 
The reapers are the apostles, the sower 
in the present instance is Jesus himself. 
The sentiment is finely illustrated, by 
the comparison of this visit to the 
Samaritan city, with the subsequent 
missionary visit recorded in Acts 8 : 
5-25. Wages. This includes of course 
the joy and happiness which accompany 
a service so delightful, as that of labor- 
ing to promote the salvation of men. 
Hence, as Alford remarks, these wages 
correspond to the meat, which our Lord, 
the great Sower of truth, declared to be 
furnished him in doing the will of Him 
that sent him. But the great reward is 
undoubtedly that which is brought to 
view in the next clause, and is therefore 
not so much co-ordinate with the first 
clause, as illustrative and explanatory 
of it. We might translate and explain 
it, receiveth wages, even the gathering of 
fruit unto life eternal. The words 
gathereth fruit, refer to the souls saved 
from sin and death, and rendered meet 
for eternal life. This shows that the 
first clause, he that reapeth receiveth 
wages, refers to a spiritual harvest. That 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



37 And herein is that saying 
true, One soweth, and another 
reapeth. 

38 I sent you to reap that 



both he that soweth, &c. denotes the 
result of these spiritual labors and this 
harvest of souls. The laborers in God's 
husbandry both sowers and reapers, 
shall all rejoice together in the world 
of happiness above. Although Christ 
is espi cially referred to here as the 
Great Sower, yet in a subordinate sense, 
all his ministers who preach the gospel, 
and all private Christians who sow the 
seed of eternal truth, are included in 
the expression he that soweth. To the 
labors of such dispensers of the word, 
others succeed as reapers, but all are 
engaged in one common work of love, 
and shall alike rejoice at the precious 
results of their labors. 

37. The sentiment of the preceding 
verse is appropriately illustrated and 
enforced by the proverbial saying here 
referred to, which, although primarily 
used of what takes place in the vicissi- 
tude of human affairs, where one man 
harvests that which was sown by an- 
other, is equally applicable to spiritual 
sowing and reaping. There is this 
difference, however, between the tem- 
poral and spiritual application of this 
truth. In the natural world, this 
mutation of things takes place usually 
to the pi'ejudice of the one who sows; 
whereas in the spiritual world, it sub- 
tracts not in the least from the joy of 
the sower, that another enters upon 
his labors and becomes the reaper. 

38. This verse in the textual exposi- 
tion (not however in the logical order, 
see N. on vs. 36-38), is the application 
of the preceding proverb. / the lord 
of the harvest. See Matt. 9 : 38 ; Luke 

l 10 : 2. Sent you to reap. In the use 
of the past tense, our Lord speaks by 
way of anticipation, as though his work 
were already accomplished, and his dis- 
ciples sent forth on their mission. As 
a fact, however, they had been called 
to the work, and had already entered 
upon their preparatory discipleship, 
although not yet formally set apart to 



whereon ye bestowed no labour : 
other men laboured, and ye are 
entered into their labours. 



their apostleship. In a certain sense, 
although to an eminent degree them- 
selves the sowers of truth, they were 
reapers of a harvest from seed sown by 
the prophets and religious teachers, 
who had preceded them, and prepared 
the way for the proclamation of the 
gospel. This was emphatically true of 
their relation to Jesus himself, who pre- 
pared the soil and sowed the seed of 
truth, from which in the early ages of 
the church such an abundant harvest 
was gathei-ed. Other men, i. e. the Old 
Testament prophets, John the Baptist, 
and especially our Lord himself. xYlford 
finds the reference to our Lord only, 
the plural being used to correspond 
with ye in the second member. Such 
also is the exposition of Tholuck and 
other evangelical German commenta- 
tors. Olshausen, on the other hand, 
excludes all reference to Jesus, inas- 
much as he is the Lord of the harvest. 
But the figure drawn from the harvest, 
is employed in a variety of ways, 
sometimes referring to the end of the 
world (Matt. 13:37, 39); sometimes 
to those whose iniquity is ripe for 
punishment (Rev. 14: 15); sometimes 
to the converts to be gathered into 
Christ's kingdom (Matt. 9 : 37, 38 ; Luke 
10 : 2), and sometimes to the reward 
according to his works, which each one 
shall receive (2 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 6 : 7). 
In accordance with this variety of ap- 
plications and uses of the figure, our 
Lord is sometimes called the Lord of 
the harvest (Matt. 9 : 38; Luke 10 : 2); 
at other times, the Sower of good seed 
(Matt. 13 : 37). In the passage before 
us, the whole train of thought refers 
to Christ, as the great Sower of the seed 
of truth. He had, despite his weariness 
and fatigue, planted the germs of truth 
in the heart of the Samaritan woman, 
and now the men of the city were 
approaching in numbers to see and 
hear for themselves. A harvest of souls, 
as we find in v. 41, was at once gath- 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER IV. 



83 



39 And many of the Samaritans 
of that city believed on him -' for 
the saying of the woman, which 
testified, He told me all that ever 

.Idid. 

40 So vrhen the Samaritans 
were come unto him, they be- 
sought him that he would tarry 
with them : and he abode there 
two days. 

ered in, and still more abundant fruits 
were seen in the great ingathering in 
Acts 8 : 5-25. But* -while special re- 
ference is had to the Lord Jesus, in a 
general sense, as has been remarked, the 
expression other men, may be referred 
to all the religious teachers 'who had 
preceded Christ, and prepared the way 
for his advent and mission. In a word, 
the special application is to Jesus 
himself, the Great Sower of truth; the 
general scope embraces all in every 
age, who dispense the truth, and pre- 
pare the way for a subsequent ingath- 
ering of souls into the kingdom of 
Christ. 

39. This verse seems to have been 
thrown in, to account for the readiness, 
with which the Samaritans accompanied 
the woman on her return to Jesus. 
They -were struck with the extraordi- 
nary report which she had made of the 
Jewish stranger, and confiding fully in 
the truth of what she had affirmed, 
became at once believers in him. Their 
faith was doubtless vague and indefi- 
nite, but it was sufficient to bring them 
to him to be confirmed and enlightened 
by the gracious instruction, which he 
vouchsafed to give them during his 
visit to their city. Believed on him as 
the promised Messiah. Here was an 
exemplification of the ripeness of the 
spiritual harvest. For the saying of the 
woman. Contrasted with this is his own 
word in v. 41. What the saying of the 
woman was, is denoted in the clause 
which follows, he told me all, &c. in 
reference to which see X. on v. 29. 

40. The word rendered so, is more 
literally therefore, and resumes the nar- 
ration from v. 30. Were come unto him, 
and were confirmed in the extraordinary 



41 And many more believed 
because of his own word ; 

42 And said unto the woman, 
Now we believe, not because of 
thy saying : for a we have heard 
him ourselves, and know that 
this is indeed the Christ, the 
Saviour of the world. 

s Ver. 29. 
aCh. 17:S;Uo. 4:14. 

character which the woman gave to 
him, by what fell from his own lips. 
We do not read of a single miracle 
performed by Jesus on this occasion. 
The reception given him by these Sa- 
maritans was the sole effect of the 
preached word, the sowing of divine 
truth. To tarry. This word refers to 
a long, if not a permanent continuance 
with them, to remain, to abide being its 
literal signification. Two days. He 
spent the night with them, and thus 
portions of two days, which in accord- 
ance with Hebrew usage are denomina- 
ted two days. See IS", on Matt. 12 : 40. 

41. Many more. The comparison is 
with the many, who believed in Jesus 
on account of what he said to the 
woman (v. 39). Webster and Wilkin- 
son are right, however, in saying that 
the many more who believed, may well 
be understood to include the former 
many (v. 39), the word rendered not in 
v. 42 being literally no longer, "ref- 
erence being had not to the former be- 
lief of some of those who spoke, as to 
a former belief on different grounds 
from those of the present." Because 
of his own word, as they themselves 
heard it. His own word is here put in 
contrast with the report of him, which 
the woman brought to her townsmen. 
See N. on v. 39. 

42. Not (literally, no longer} because 
of thy saying, i. e. not so much on ac- 
count of what the woman had said, as 
from his own words. See IS", on v. 41. 
Thy saying ; literally, thy talk, as op- 
posed to the discourse of Jesus. Spe- 
cial reference is had, however, to her 
testimony referred to in vs. 29, 39. 
For we have heard, &c. This belongs 
to the clause now we believe, denoting 



84 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



after two days lie 
departed thence, and went into 

Galilee. ■ 



the ground or reason of their belief. 
Augustine draws a beautiful and striking 
analogy between the faith of these 
Samaritans, first excited through the 
report of the woman concerning Christ, 
and afterwards confirmed by his pres- 
ence, and that of those, who in subse- 
quent times believe on him, being first 
invited to seek him by Christian 
friends, but only reaching the full 
measure of faith, when they come to 
him and experience by direct commu- 
nication with him, his life-giving and 
saving power. The Saviour of the 
world, and not simply of the Jews and 
Samaritans. This shows how far in 
advance of the Jews were these Sa- 
maritans, in their conception of the 
true office work of the Messiah. From 
their cordial reception of Jesus, and 
their noble confession of faith, we can- 
not wonder at the flourishing church, 
which was there built up in the earliest 
age of the church. Tholuck remarks 
that "it cannot be maintained positive- 
ly, that the people actually employed 
the expression Saviour of the world." 
But we might doubt with as good rea- 
son, that they actually uttered the pre- 
ceding words, this is the Christ. Their 
view of the Messiah as a Prophet and 
Eevealer of truth to men, as far as it 
went, was much more correct, than the 
opinions entertained in general by the 
Jews ; and if we may augur from the 
explicit declaration of his Messiahship, 
which our Lord made to the woman, it 
seems not unlikely, that he followed it 
up with a full disclosure to the Sychar- 
ites of his office, as a suffering, dying 
Redeemer of men. If it be objecled to 
this, that his disciples must have heard 
it, it may be replied, that if so, their 
Jewish prejudices in favor of a temporal 
Messiah precluded their full under- 
standing and reception of this truth ; 
and this we know was true of them, 
when in a subsequent stage of his min- 
istry, he disclosed to them the unweh 



44 For h Jesus himself testified 
that a prophet hath no honour in 
his own country. 

5 Mat. 13:5T; Ma. G: 4; Lu. 4:24. 



come truth, that he was to suffer and 
die at the hand of his enemies. 

43. After two days; literally, after the 
two days, mentioned in v. 40. He did 
not tarry long with the Samaritans, as 
his official life was to be passed among 
the Jews, to whom the gospel was first 
to be preached. His brief visit and its 
gracious results were intended only as a 
foreshadowing of the free and univer- 
sal proclamation of the gospel, confined 
to no people or country, which was to 
be made after his ascension. Into Gal- 
ilee, as distinguished from Nazareth his 
native city. The reason why he did 
not go there is given in the next verse. 

44. The connection and precise 
meaning of this verse has been va- 
riously explained. Some render the par- 
ticle translated for, by the word al- 
though giving as the sense that Jesus re- 
turned into Galilee, notwithstanding the 
disinclination of the people to acknowl- 
edge his claims as a religious teacher, 
from the fact that it was his native coun- 
try. But this is a sense which the Greek 
particle never has, and it would be 
presumptuous to force it upon this pas- 
sage. Meyer, Neander, and others, re- 
gard it as the reason why our Lord had 
tarried so long in Judca, and did not 
go to Galilee before. They had at first 
shown no disposition to receive him as 
a religious teacher, but had become 
now more inclined to faith, through 
the miracles which had been witnessed 
in Jerusalem, and hence he leaves Ju- 
dea and returns to Galilee. But this 
is forced, unnatural, and has no sup- 
port from the connection with the pas- 
sage with what precedes or follows. 
Tholuck, Be Wette, and Alford, con- 
sider it as a preliminary explanation of 
the whole narrative which follows, indi- 
cating the difference between the Gali- 
leans and Samaritans ; the former be- 
lieving only when they saw signs and 
wonders (v. 48); the latter yielding 
full belief to his simple declarations re- 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER IV. 



85 



45 Then when he was come in- 
to G-alilee, the Galileans received 
him, c having seen all the things 
that he did at Jerusalem at the 

cCh. 2:23; & 3: 2. 

specting himself. Tholuck expresses 
the idea thus: "By translating the 
Greek particle [rendered for in our 
common version] namely, to wit, this 
verse then serves to indicate why the 
Evangelist attributes the faith of the 
Galileans to their having seen the 
miracles performed in Jerusalem, 
namely, to show that this readiness was 
not in contradiction to the earlier 
words of Christ." But with all defer- 
ence to these eminent expositors, this 
explanation is in itself dark and ob- 
scure, proceeding on a very involved 
construction, and forcing us to take the 
verb of the Greek aorist in a pluperfect 
sense, a thing which is admissible for 
the most part only in narration, when 
the speaker or writer wishes particular- 
ly to express the exact relation of time. 
The context also must demand this 
change of tense ; whereas, in the pres- 
ent instance, the change is made in 
order to clear up a doubtful connec- 
tion. The exposition which makes the 
passage teach that Jesus returned into 
Galilee, for the very reason that he 
would be received with distrust and 
disrespect by his wicked countrymen, 
is too absurd to demand a serious refu- 
tation. It is opposed to the wise pru- 
dence which dictated all his movements, 
and to the spirit and letter of the direc- 
tion given to his disciples. Matt. 10: 
14 ; Mark 6:11; Luke 9 : 5. 

The most natural solution, and one 
which comports with the grammatical 
demands of the passage, is to refer it to 
what immediately precedes, as a reason 
why he did not return to Nazareth his 
native place, but went into some other 
part of Galilee. It would have been so 
natural for him to go to his own city or 
town, that the Evangelist represents 
Jesus himself, as giving a reason for 
not doing so, that a prophet hath no 
honor in his own country. This relieves 
us from the necessity of employing the 



feast : d for they also went unto 
the feast. 

46 So Jesus came again into 
Cana of Galilee, e where he made 

<SDe.l6:16. e Ch. 2:1, 11. 



verb in a pluperfect sense had testified, 
the saying in Luke 4 : 26 ; Mark 6 : 4, 
being only the varied and subsequent 
repetition of the same proverb, and not 
uttered previously, as Webster and Wil- 
kinson seem to infer. The particle ren- 
dered for, is employed in its true and 
more usual sense, as introducing a cause 
or reason for what logically precedes it. 
The expression his own country, is used 
of Nazareth in Matt. 13: 54; Mark 
6:1; Luke 4 : 23, and hence we are 
justified in giving it this reference 
here. Winer referring to v. 43, says 
that country can only mean Galilee. 
But for the reasons above given, I can- 
not concur with him in this view. Je- 
sus himself testified, i. e. he gave open 
and emphatic utterance to this proverb. 
Hath no honor, &c. His claims to be 
regarded as a prophet would be re- 
jected by his townsmen. See Ns. on 
Matt. 13 : 57; Luke 4 : 26. 

45. Received him or welcomed him, 
not because they believed in him as the 
Messiah, but on account of the mira- 
cles, which they had seen performed 
by him at Jerusalem. This appears 
from the next clause, having seen (i. e. 
because they had seen) all the things, 
&c. See 2 : 23. They doubtless hoped 
that he would exercise his wonderful 
miraculous power, in effecting their de- 
liverance from the Roman yoke, which 
was particularly galling and oppressive 
to the Galileans. It was also a matter of 
pride to them, that a Deliverer should rise 
up from their country, which was always 
held in low repute by those who dwelt 
in Judea. For they also, &c. is added 
by the Evangelist for the benefit of his 
Gentile readers, to show that the Gali- 
leans were in the practice of attending 
the prescribed feasts at Jerusalem. 

46. So; literally, therefore in con- 
sequence of his visit to Galilee, and the 
favorable reception given him, by the 
Galileans. It is a general inference 



86 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 80. 



the water wine. And there was 
a certain nobleman, whose son 
was sick at Capernaum. 

47 When he heard that Jesus 
was come out of Judea into Gal- 
ilee, he went unto him, and be- 
sought him that he would come 

/l Co. 1:22. 



from what has just been related. Into 
Cana of Galilee. As the cause of this 
favorable reception of Jesus by the Gal- 
ileans was the fame of his miracles, he 
wisely sought to take advantage of the 
public estimation in which he was held, 
to disseminate more correct views of 
the spiritual nature of his mission, and 
hence proceeded to Cana, which had 
been the scene of his first miracle, and 
where he supposed that the people 
would be inclined to listen to his in- 
structions. A certain nobleman; lit- 
erally, a courtier, a royal attendant. 
He was probably an officer of Herod 
Antipas, and is conjectured by some to 
have been Chuza, Herod's steward. 
See Luke 8 : 3. Alford thinks that he 
was a Jew, but this is quite doubtful. 
Whose son. The article in the original, 
seems to point him out as an only son. 
At Capernaum. This refers to the 
dwelling place of the nobleman, as well 
as to the place where his son was sick. 

47. When he heard, &c. The inci- 
dent here recorded took place, prob- 
ably, almost immediately upon the 
arrival of our Lord in Galilee. Would 
come down, in reference to the situation 
of Capernaum upon the lake shore. 
See N. on Luke 4: 31. For he was at 
the point of death; literally, about to 
die. These are the words of the noble- 
man, and given as a reason for immedi- 
ate assistance. 

48. Except ye see, &c. These words, 
which place in strong contrast the un- 
belief of the Galileans, compared with 
the ready faith in Jesus manifested by 
the Samaritans (vs. 39, 41), were spoken 
as a reproof to the bystanders, and 
through them to all the Galileans, who 
like the Nazarenes rejected him, be- 
cause they saw no such miracles, as he 



down, and heal his son : for he 
was at the point of death. 

48 Then said Jesus unto him, 
f Except ye see signs and won- 
ders, ye will not believe. 

49 The nobleman saith unto 
him, Sir, come down ere my child 
die. 

was reported to have wrought at Caper- 
naum (see Luke 4 : 23). No particular 
stress is to be laid upon the verb see, as 
opposed to testimony from hearsay; but 
the contrast lies between that unbelief 
which yields only to the evidence of the 
senses, compared with the simple and 
ready faith, which the woman of Samaria 
and her townsmen put in his words. 
Reference is had to the reason alleged in 
v. 45, why the Galileans received him. 
The nobleman may have been slightly 
referred to, whose faith was so weak, that 
he supposed our Lord must of necessity 
be present to effect the cure of his son. 
Signs and wonders. These words are 
joined only here and in Matt. 24: 24; 
Mark 13 : 22, where they are used in 
reference to deceivers and unbelievers. 
It is usual to regard them as employed 
with little or no distinction, but this is 
erroneous. The sense is except ye be- 
hold signs (compare Matt. 12:38, 39; 
16:1; Mark 8:11; Luke 11:16; John 
2 : 18 ; 1 Cor. 1 : 22), even such as may 
be regarded as toonders, prodigies, some- 
thing of a very superhuman and extra- 
ordinary character, ye will not believe. 
Signs then, as Stier from Origen re- 
marks, point to the internal significance 
of the ivonder or extraordinary manifes- 
tation. So Webster and Wilkinson : 
wonders which occur as proofs, signifi- 
cant, testificatory wonders. 

49. The nobleman seeing that Jesus 
made no direct reply to his urgent re- 
quest, but was turning to the multitude 
with words of reproof for their unbe- 
lief, again ventures to importune him 
for speedy relief. His faith, which may 
have been at first, quite weak, was thus 
tested and strengthened. Come down 
ere my child die. This repetition shows 
that the nobleman placed great stress 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER IY. 



87 



50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy 
way ; thy son liveth. And the 
man believed the word that Je- 
sus had spoken unto hhn, and he 
•went his way. 

upon the personal presence of Jesus to 
heal his child. In like manner, Martha 
and Mary did not fully recognize our 
Lord's power to raise even the dead, 
but expressed their confidence, that 
had he been present their brother 
would not have died (see 11 : 21, 32). 
Lange remarks upon this verse, that 
our Lord opposes to the precipitate ex- 
citement and haste of the nobleman, 
his own supreme self-possession and 
tranquillity. This is true of other and 
similar instances, where he was ur- 
gently called upon for assistance. See 
Matt. 8: 26; 14: 26-32. 

50. Go thy teat/, &c. This direction 
put the faith of the nobleman to the 
severest test. ' Can this man heal at a 
word my son, who lies sick at a town 
some 25 miles distant ? Such amazing 
power seems beyond belief.' But the 
command has in itself the calm dignity 
of conscious power, and the nobleman 
returns with a believing spirit to his 
sick child. Commentators have not 
failed to notice the difference between 
our Lord's treatment of this case, and 
that of the centurion (Matt. 8 : 8). 
When his faith in the outset was so 
strong, that he requested our Lord to 
speak the word only and his servant 
should five, the reply was, "I will come 
and heal him." Here the nobleman asks 
Jesus to come down to his house, and is 
answered, " Go thy way, thy son liv- 
eth." As Trench after Chrysostom re- 
marks, the weak faith of the nobleman 
is strengthened, while the humility 
of the centurion is honored. Thy son 
liveth, is something more than is con- 
valescent. His malady had made such 
progress and was so incurable, that 
he might be already regarded as dead, 
and hence the removal of the dis- 
ease was the same as fife from the 
dead. The expression is put in strong 
antithesis with the death spoken of in 
v. 49, as certain to take place unless 



51 And as he was now going 
down, his servants met him, and 
told him, saying, Thy son liveth. 

52 Then inquired he of them 
the hour when he began to amend. 

help were obtained from Jesus. Lange, 
who is quick at seeing verbal shades of 
thought and emphasis, supposes a pause 
between go thy way (which in the ori- 
ginal is a single word, proceed, depart), 
and the words of hope and comfort, 
thy son liveth, which follow. The one 
subjects his faith to a still severer test; 
the other raises him from the abyss of 
despair, into which he was about to be 
plunged. The man believed the word, &c. 
He no longer waited to see signs and 
wonders, but with implicit trust and 
confidence in the simple word of Jesus, 
set out at once on his return to Caper- 
naum. His faith was now so strong, 
that he no longer importuned Jesus to 
accompany him, but departs with cheer- 
ful confidence that it shall be as he had 
said. Alford remarks that " the bring- 
ing out and strengthening of the man's 
faith by these words, was almost as 
great a spiritual miracle, as the material 
one which they indicated." 

51. As he teas now going down, &c. 
He was probably at this time near his 
home. It appears from the narrative, 
that as he did not reach Capernaum 
the preceding night, which he might 
have done, the distance being only 25 
or 30 miles, and leaving Jesus as he did 
at 1 o'clock, P. M. (see vs. 52, 53), his 
servants fearing that he was detained 
by some accident or untoward circum- 
stance, and willing to relieve his mind 
from all anxiety respecting his child, 
went forth the next morning to meet 
him. Thy son liveth. The very words 
which our Lord used, when he dismiss- 
ed the nobleman from his presence (v. 
50), except that the word more literally 
rendered boy, is substituted for son. 
The expression is here a brief annuncia- 
tion that the child Avas out of all dan- 
ger. 

52. Then inquired he, &c. "This 
question proves that the nobleman was 
concerned not merely about the result 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



And they said unto him, Yester- 
day at the seventh hour the fever 
left him. 

53 So the father knew that it 
was at the same hour, in the 
which Jesus said unto him, Thy 
son liveth : and himself believed, 
and his whole house. 



of the curing, but also about the confir- 
mation of his faith in Jesus." Tholuck. 
He at once refers the restoration of his 
son to the sovereign power and grace 
of Jesus, and hence seeks for the evi- 
dence of the coincidence, which his 
faith assures him subsisted between the 
hour of his recovery, and the time when 
Jesus sent him away with the assurance 
that his son lived. To amend; literally, 
to be better. These words show that the 
father was looking for a gradual cure, 
and this may in part account for the 
leisurely manner, in which he evidently 
pursued his journey homeward, although 
this fact is mainly to be attributed to 
the new emotions of love and gratitude 
to Jesus, which had sprung up in his 
soul, making his journey, one of devo- 
tional praise instead of feverish anxiety 
in regard to his sick child. Yesterday. 
This shows that it was the day follow- 
ing his interview with Jesus, when he 
reached home. Seventh hour. The 
time when Jesus dismissed the noble- 
man was therefore about one o'clock. 
TJie fever left him. This shows the 
sudden and radical cure which took 
place, and contrasts strongly with the 
words of the father began to amend, his 
faith not having anticipated so sudden 
and complete a restoration to health. 
On the gradual recovery from febrile 
diseases, see N. on Matt. 8 : 15. 

53. Himself believed, &c. He now 
believes not only in the word and pro- 
mise of Jesus (v. 50), but in him as the 
Messiah. His whole house (or household), 
comprising his servants also, who had 
learned from him the circumstances at- 
tending the healing of his son, and may 
even have anticipated such an announce- 
ment, when they compared the time of 



54 This is again the second mir- 
acle that Jesus did, when he was 
come out of Judea into Galilee. 

CHAPTER V. 

AFTER a this there was a feast 
of the Jews ; and Jesus went 
up to Jerusalem. 

aLe. 23:2; De. 16:2; ch. 2:13. 



this sudden and unlooked for departure 
of the fever, with the time when they 
might expect their master to have the 
interview with Jesus, whom they knew 
he had gone to visit. 

54. Again should be translated with 
the latter clause of the verse, so as to 
read, when he was come out of Judea 
again into Galilee. Second miracle in 
reference to the one previously per- 
formed in Cana (2 : 1-12). Dr. Robin- 
son takes the word again with second, 
as a sort of pleonasm. So Webster and 
Wilkinson refer to the English expres- 
sion, a second time repeated, which al- 
though incorrect is frequently employ- 
ed. Both these miracles occupied an 
important position, the one being de- 
signed to strengthen the faith of his 
disciples ; the other, that of the people, 
whose faith was probably after the type 
of that of the nobleman, and needed to 
be confirmed by some remarkable mani- 
festation of his power. It is too evi- 
dent to require proof, that the miracles 
which our Lord wrought in Judea are 
passed over, and as no previous miracle 
in Galilee has been spoken of, the one 
in Cana must be that to which this 
miracle sustains the relation of the 
second one. 

CHAPTER V. 
This chapter introduces us to those 
great discussions and conflicts which 
Jesus had with the Jews, and which 
ended with a most settled and malig- 
nant determination on their part to 
effect his death. In the light of John's 
gospel, we see much more clearly than 
in the synoptical gospels, the reason for 
that violent and inveterate rage, which 
reached its culminating point after the 



A. D. 30.] 



CHAPTER V. 



89 



2 Now there is at Jerusalem 
b by the sheep market a pool, 

6Ne. 3:1; & 12; 39. 

resurrection of Lazarus, and was satiat- 
ed only by his being nailed to tlie cross. 
The miracles related serve as the themes 
or exciting causes of these great dis- 
courses with the Jews; and it will be 
seen by the careful reader, that John 
records such miracles only as stand 
connected with the vindication of his 
divine mission and character, which 
Jesus so fully and conclusively made to 
these unbelieving Jews. Thus the 
charge of his having violated the sab- 
bath, to which his miraculous cure "of 
the infirm man at the pool of Bethesda 
(5 : 1-10) subjected him, furnishes the 
ground of his claim to equality with the 
Father, which he proves on the testi- 
mony of his Father, of John, of his 
own works, and of the Scriptures. The 
miraculous supply of bread for the five 
thousand (G : 5-13), introduces the dis- 
course in which he declares himself to 
be the bread of life to all believers. The 
restoration of the blind man to sight 
(9 : 1-7), and the opposition from the 
Pharisees excited thereby, gives occasion 
for him to declare that he came into 
the world, that they which see not might 
see, and that they which see might be 
made blind. Thus it will appear that 
John records those miracles only, which 
stand related to the subsequent discus- 
sion of some great truth, occasioned by 
the increasingly virulent and active op- 
position of the Jews to which the mira- 
cle gave rise. This furnishes the reason 
why John narrates so few miracles seven 
only being recorded previous to the close 
of our Lord's active ministry. It was 
not the design of his gospel to speak so 
much of the works of Jesus, as his doc- 
trines, and hence those miracles only are 
related, which were the occasion of his 
doctrinal discourses, or those which 
refer to the higher life to which the be- 
liever has been quickened and intro- 
duced. 

1-47. The healing of the infirm 
man at the pool of bethesda, and 
our Lord's subsequent discourse. 
Jerusalem. 



which is called in the Hebrew 
tongue Bethesda., having five 
porches. 



1. After this; literally, after these 
things, referring, as Liicke remarks, 
not to immediate succession, but to 
what takes place after an interval. Im- 
mediate succession in John's gospel, is 
geuerally denoted by the singular after 
this. There teas a feast. This, as Dr. 
Robinson most ably and conclusively 
shews, was the feast of the passover, 
and the second one in our Lord's minis- 
try. The third is noticed in G : 4 ; the 
fourth, in 11 : 55. It is from these 
passovers, that we ai-e enabled to fix 
the duration of our Lord's public min- 
istry, at three and a half years. 

2. TJicre is at Jerusalem. The pres- 
ent tense which John here employs, 
makes Bengel think that he wrote his 
gospel prior to the destruction of Jeru- 
salem. But this furnishes very slender 
ground for such a conclusion, as the 
tense is doubtless the present historic, 
employed to give animation to the re- 
cital of past events by bringing them 
before the mind of the reader, as going 
on or existing at the present time. This is 
a common practice with writers of such 
graphic energy and vivacity as John. By 
the sheep market. The word gate, would 
have been correctly supplied in our ver- 
sion, reference being had doubtless to 
that spoken of in Xeh. 3: 1, 32; 12: 
39, and called sometimes the gate of the 
valley, through which sheep to be offer- 
ed in sacrifice were driven. It has 
been thought to be the same as that 
now called the gate of St. Stephen, but 
Dr. Robinson has shown that no wall 
existed in that quarter until the time 
of Agrippa. A pool ; literally, a bathing 
place, or one to swim in. Bethesda, i. e. 
house of mercy. It is quite a useless 
task to inquire into the site of this pool. 
" The spot now traditionally known as 
Bethesda, is a part of the fosse round 
the fort or town of Antonia, an im- 
mense reservoir or trench, seventy-five 
feet deep. But, as Robinson observes, 
there is not the slightest evidence that 
can identify it with the Bethesda of the 
New Testament." Alford. Josephus 



90 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 30. 



3 In these lay a great multitude 
of impotent folk, of "blind, halt, 
withered, waiting for the moving 
of the water. 

4 For an angel went down at a 
certain season into the pool, and 

does not mention this pool, but this is no 
evidence against the fact of its exist- 
ence, as here related. There were very- 
many things connected with the topog- 
raphy of Jerusalem, which it did not 
fall within his province to relate. Five 
porches. These were doubtless covered 
porticos fronting the pool, for the ac- 
commodation of those sick persons who 
wished to avail themselves of the heal- 
ing quality of the waters. 

3. In these lay, &c. Some of these 
sick persons probably remained there 
both night and day. Others resorted 
to the pool on the morning of each 
day, and returned at night-fall to their 
own homes or those of their friends. 
Impotent folk ; literally, the feeble, the 
sick, the article in the original referring 
in a generic sense to the sick as a 
class. The special reference here is 
to such as were enfeebled by long- 
standing complaints. Persons who were 
prostrated by fevers and other violent 
diseases of like character, from the 
nature of the case, are to be excluded 
from the number of those who lay here 
waiting for the movement of the water. 
Halt, i. e. those who were crippled in 
the feet. Withered. See N. on Matt. 
12 : 10. Waiting for. The word has 
the sense of waiting with the hope or 
expectation of receiving some benefit. 
Moving of the water in the manner 
spoken of in the next verse. 

4. The question in regard to the 
authenticity of this passage, has been 
agitated by critics and expositors, in 
almost every age of the church. In 
many ancient MSS. it is wanting; in 
others, it is marked as suspicious or 
spurious. Of the moderns, Tholuck, 
Afford, Olshausen, and Lucke, regard 
it as spurious, although Olshausen, 
while he denies that the passage ema- 
nated from John, says that it contains 
nothing incompatible with his range of 



troubled the water : whosoever 
then first after the troubling of 
the water stepped in was made 
whole of whatsoever disease he 
had. 



ideas. On the other hand, the Syriac, 
Latin, iEthiopic, and Arabic versions 
have the passage. All the Christian 
Fathers, such as Tertullian, Ambrose, 
Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine, hold the 
reading as genuine. Yerse 7, as Stier 
well remarks, absolutely requires the 
whole addition, for taken alone without 
the explanation furnished by v. 4, it is 
wholly unintelligible. If it be said that 
v. 4 has been interpolated by some 
reader or copyist, in order to explain 
v. 7, this is a mere begging of the 
question, without one particle of proof 
to sustain it. 

It is adduced by some, as a collateral 
argument against the genuineness of 
this passage, that no allusion whatever 
is made to this angelic agency by the 
other Evangelists. But this objection, 
if admitted, would lie with equal force 
against the genuineness of the raising 
of Lazarus, the turning of the water 
into wine at Cana, and other incidents 
recorded by John, and not by the other 
Evangelists. Pushed to its ultimate 
consequences, it would throw discredit 
on any fact, which happens to be found 
recorded in only one of the gospels. 
It would demand absolute uniformity 
of plan and detail; and throw doubt 
upon every statement which was not 
a repetition of what was related by 
the previous writer. The Evangelists 
all had their own design, under the 
guidance of the Spirit, in the composi- 
tion of their gospels, and recorded such 
incidents and discourses as would best 
subserve the purpose for which they 
wrote. Especially was this true of John, 
ihe very beginning of whose gospel, 
shows that he had an express object in 
view, which could not be attained by 
making the gospels previously written 
his models. Hence we might expect in 
his gospel, the introduction of incidents 
and discourses different from those re- 



A. D. 31.] 



CHAPTER V. 



91 



corded by Matthew, Mark, or Luke. 
The thing here related must have been 
notorious, for John lived at Jerusalem 
some twenty years, until the disturb- 
ances commenced which led to the 
destruction of the city. He then went 
to Ephesus, and there in the face of the 
world published his gospel, in which 
was recorded this fact. There were 
many Jews at Ephesus, and in every 
other city of Asia Minor, bitterly 
opposed to Christianity, and well ac- 
quainted with the topography of 
Jerusalem, who, if John's account had 
been false, would most assuredly have 
exposed the falsehood. 

As it regards the fact here related, 
that an angel at certain seasons dis- 
turbed the water, and imparted to it 
thereby a sanitory influence, who can 
disprove it ? It is to us as much a 
matter of revelation, as the existence of 
good angels, demons, and other things 
pertaining to the spiritual world. See N. 
on Matt. 4 : 24. Every effort made to 
explain this angelic ministration, by 
electricity or some other agency of na- 
ture, imparting to the water a healing 
property, is wholly absurd and futile. 
Was it ever a recorded fact, or even a 
thing heard of from the creation of man 
to the present time, that electricity or 
any process of mineralization, took upon 
itself an active agency at regular and 
definite seasons, having power to heal 
every form of disease, even those de- 
manding the most opposite treatment, 
and incurable by the same natural 
means — and still more strange, this 
healing power being exhausted for the 
time upon the one diseased person who 
should first step into the water? Tho- 
luck thinks that this spring was gaseous 
and bubbled at intervals, and refers to 
a gaseous spring at Kissingen, which, 
after a rushing sound about the same 
time every day, commences to bubble, 
and is most efficacious at the very time 
the gas is making its escape, and that 
this gas spring was especially used in 
diseases of the eye. But did this gaseous 
spring expend all its curative power 
upon the Jirst person who dipped him- 
self in its waters, or applied them to 
himself; were they cured instantanc- 



and was it alike effective in 
curing any and every disease with which 
the patient might be afflicted ? These 
and other questions are to be met and 
answered, before we can presume to 
explain away the miraculous character 
of this narrative, by comparing the 
pool of Bethesda with any of the min- 
eral or gaseous springs, which are 
found to exert a remedial influence on 
certain diseases, but none of which has 
the wonderful power of effecting an 
instantaneous cure of any disease what- 
ever, nor the equally remarkable 
property of losing temporarily its san- 
itory power on its application to a 
single person. 

We hardly need mention, except for 
the sake of illustrating the pitiful shifts, 
to which men resort, who undertake to 
explain away God's word, or to improve 
upon its simple teachings by their own 
inventions, the notions of some who 
would refer the healing virtue of this 
pool, to the blood of the sacrifices, 
which flowed into it from the thousands 
of victims slain at the passover and 
other great feasts. It would be a suf- 
ficient reply to this absurd theory, that 
no Jew could have been tempted to 
bathe in waters so unclean, even to 
obtain so great a blessing as resto- 
ration to health. This theory is also 
open to the same objection, which lies 
against the reference of this healing 
power to electricity, impregnation with 
mineral properties, gaseous excitement 
and the like, that its sanative virtue 
should be such, as to cure any and ev- 
ery form of disease, and should be ex- 
perienced only at stated seasons and by 
only one person at a time. No one, 
unless disposed to discard all miracu- 
lous agencies and manifestations, would 
ever resort to such absurd theories, in 
regard to the plain declaration of the 
text respecting the angelic agency ex- 
erted at times upon this water. We are 
bound to receive this as a plain matter 
of revelation, and as furnishing another 
proof, that benevolent spirits are em- 
ployed as the instruments of good to 
men, in like manner as wicked spirits 
are busily engaged in the infliction of 
evil. 



92 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 31. 



5 And a certain man was there, 
winch had an infirmity thirty and 



eight year: 



It is unnecessary to suppose that the 
Jewish people, at this time, were ac- 
quainted with the cause of the healing 
properties of this pool, or of the won- 
drous phenomena attending it. This 
has been made known to us by the re- 
vealed word of God. They knew only 
this — a fact which in the outset may 
have been stumbled upon by the mer- 
est accident — that at a certain appa- 
rent commotion of the waters, whoever 
first succeeded in bathing himself in 
the pool, was immediately cured of his 
disease. They learned to avail them- 
selves of this wondrous virtue of the 
water, ignorant, however, of what has 
been revealed to us by John, that it 
was caused by an angelic agency. 

Went down. The tense in the orig- 
inal denotes the habit of descending 
for this benevolent purpose. Certain 
season. This does not necessarily refer 
to stated seasons, or those recurring 
at regular intervals, for as Alford well 
observes, in that case, the sick need 
not have waited for such seasons. The 
idea seems to lie in the fit or opportune 
seasons, as seen by the eye of Him in 
whose benevolent service the angel 
was engaged. This accords with the 
meaning of the original, the word ren- 
dered season, being literally, the right, 
Jit, proper time, the season of action. 
Into the pool. The preposition in the 
original is in, which has led Liicke to 
refer it to the descent of the angel into 
the depths of the pool, in order to pro- 
duce the agitation here spoken of. It 
is better however to take the preposi- 
tion by a pregnant construction (see 
N. on Matt. 3 : 6), as indicating the 
state of rest which follows the action 
of the verb. The angel descended to 
the pool, and there remained until he 
had disturbed the water in the manner 
here specified, when, so far as the nar- 
rative is concerned, he went away. 
Troubled, i. e. disturbed, agitated. Ben- 
gel prefers the reading was troubled, the 
angelic agency in the phenomenon being 



6 When Jesus saw him lie, and 
knew that he had been now a 
long time in that case, he saith 



thus regarded as unknown to the peo- 
ple. He had; literally, he was held 
bound. Reference is had to long stand- 
ing and inveterate chronic diseases, 
such as are most difficult to be cured. 

5. Which had an infirmity ; literally, 
having been in his infirmity, or in a 
state of infirmity; or as Bloomfield 
renders it, who had been thirty-eight 
years laboring under sickness. It is not 
asserted or implied that he had been at 
Bethesda all this time, although from 
v. Y, it appears that he had lain there 
long enough to destroy nearly all hope 
of being able to avail himself of the 
remedy afforded by the troubled wa- 
ters. 

6. Saiv him lie. The word render- 
ed lie, is employed of one too weak or 
sick to be in other than a recumbent 
position. See K on Matt. 8 : 14. And 
knew, not as the result of inquiry from 
bystanders, but by his omniscience. 
"The unprejudiced reader can find no 
place for information given to the Lord 
between saw, knew, and saith, all com- 
pacted together in one." Stier. The 
words rendered saw and knew, are par- 
ticiples in the original, and seem to be 
used in this sense, although Jesus saio 
him lie, and knew that he had been a 
long time in that case — which of itself 
showed his great desire to be healed of 
his infirmity — yet he saith tmto him (in 
order to draw from his own lips his sad 
condition, and desire to be cured), 
wilt thou be made whole? The ques- 
tion — which was one of compassion 
and not of blame on account of too 
great despondency, much less implying 
that he was pretending to a more vio- 
lent complaint than he really had — 
served to call forth from the man some 
expression, by which might be tested 
his worthiness to receive the great 
blessing which Jesus was about to con- 
fer upon him, and established, as Al- 
ford well remarks, a point of connec- 
tion between the spirit of the person 
addressed and his own gracious pur- 



A. D. 31.] 



CHAPTER V. 



93 



unto him, "Wilt thou be made 
•whole ? 

7 The impotent man answered 
him, Sir, I have no man, when 
the water is troubled, to put me 
into the pool : but while I am 
coming, another steppeth down 
before me. 

cMat. 9:G; Ma. 2: 11; Lu. 5: 24. 

poses. Wilt thou. Xot mere -willing- 
ness is here denoted. The verb is one 
which expresses an active desire. 

7. Sir, I have no man, &c. This does 
not seem to be a direct answer to the 
question of Jesus, wilt thou be made 
whole ? We may therefore, as Winer 
suggests, supply a simple yes, certainly, 
which the sick man by a nod or ejacu- 
lation may have expressed, before he 
proceeded to state the obstacle which 
had thus far prevented him from avail- 
ing himself of the healing properties of 
the pool. His reply, while it is almost 
one of despair, shows that he had no 
hope or expectation of any other mode 
of restoration to health, than the one 
here afforded. Sir. The original is 
Lord, an expression of high respect, 
which the grave and dignified demeanor 
of Jesus challenged from the sick man. 
i" have no man, &c. Skeptical critics 
cavil at this, by inquiring why the per- 
sons who brought him each day to the 
pool, did not remain and assist him to 
attain the object of his desire. But 
not to say that the exact time when the 
pool was to be troubled was unknown, 
we have no evidence that the man was 
of a position in life to have attendants, 
who could afford time to sit by him from 
day to day, to watch for the favored 
moment of the troubling of the waters. 
Although the word lie in v. 6, as has 
been remarked, is used of one who is 
too weak or crippled to stand erect, yet 
the words while I am coming, denote 
that this man was capable at least of 
a slow motion. Steppeth dozen ; liter- 
ally, descends, goes down. As contrasted 
with the preceding verb, it here de- 
notes a comparatively rapid movement. 
Before me, in point of time. 



8 Jesus saith unto him, e Rise, 
take up thy bed, and walk. 

9 And immediately the man 
was made whole, and took up 
his bed, and walked : d and on the 
same day was the sabbath. 

10 1" The Jews therefore said 
unto him that was cured, It is 

<ZCh. 9:14. 

8. Else. How this word of divine 
mercy and power contrasts with the 
helpless feebleness expressed in the re- 
ply of the sick man. Take up thy bed, 
&c. This direction resulted from a two- 
fold reason, one, that his thorough cure 
might be the more manifest ; the other, 
to give occasion for the discourse with 
the Jews, to which the man's apparent 
violation of the sabbath gave rise. 

9. The cure was instantaneous and 
complete. The man arose, took up his 
couch on which a moment previous he 
was reclining in helpless weakness, and 
walked in freedom and happy conscious- 
ness that he was restored to full 
strength. He had no qualms of con- 
science, that in thus obeying the com- 
mand of the stranger he was violating 
the sabbath. The potent words just 
uttered in his hearing, were as though 
they came from heaven itself, and fur- 
nished him with ample justification for 
what he was doing (see v. 11). 

10. Tlie Jews, who saw him in the act 
of carrying his couch through the city 
to his home. They were not the per- 
sons who stood by and saw the miracle 
performed, as is evident from the in- 
quiry in v. 12, but were doubtless the 
chief priests and rulers, the principal 
persons in the city, members of the 
Sanhedrim (see N. on 2 : 18), who 
seized upon every occasion to bring Je- 
sus into contempt with the people. It 
is not lawful. See Jer. 17 : 21, 22 ; 
Neh. 13 : 15-22 ; Ezek. 31 : 14, 15. A 
more sharp reproof would have been 
administered, doubtless, had they not 
been impressed with awe at the stupen- 
dous miracle which had evidently been 
wrought. To carry; literally, to take 
up with intent to carry. The word has 



94 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 31. 



the sabbath day : ' it is not law- 
ful for thee to carry thy bed. 

11 He answered them, He that 
made me whole, the same said 

e Ex. 20 : 10 ; Ne. 13 : 19 ; Je. 17 : 21, &c. ; Mat. 
12: 2; Ma. 2:24; &3:4;Lu. 6:2; & 13: 14. 

the pregnant signification of taking up 
and carrying, as was done in the pres- 
ent instance. 

11. He — the same, equivalent to the 
very person. Emphasis is given to the 
incontrovertible position, that one who 
could perform so amazing a miracle was 
to be obeyed. The man did not deny 
that, according to the letter of the Jew- 
ish law, he had transgressed the sabbath. 
He justified himself solely from the 
fact, that he had acted in obedience to 
the command of that wondrous person- 
age, who had healed him at a single 
word. It will be seen also from v. 17, 
that Jesus did not justify his own act 
on any such grounds as he adduced in 
Matt. 12 : 1-7, but from his superior 
dignity which gave him power even over 
the law of the sabbath. See N. on 
Matt. 12 : 8. 

12. Wliat man is that, or more lit- 
erally, tvho is the man ? This question 
is not to be imputed to real ignorance 
as to the person who had wrought this 
miracle. The fame of Jesus was already 
such, that they doubtless surmised at 
once, that it was he who had healed 
the man. They interpose therefore no 
further obstacles to the return of the 
man to his own home, as he had been 
commanded, but bend their efforts to 
convict Jesus of having violated the 
sabbath. They are careful to refer to 
the unknown person, whose name they 
pretend to seek, in a very contemptu- 
ous manner, the word employed for 
man, being that which designates one 
as simply belonging to the human spe- 
cies, and not the one which designates 
a man of mark and distinction. Who 
said unto thee, &c. By thus shaping 
their question, they ignore the miracle 
and give prominence to the act conse- 
quent thereon, which they character- 
ized (v. 10), as a violation of the sab- 
bath. All these circumstances are to 



unto me, Take up thy bed, and 
walk* 

12 Then asked they him, What 
man is that which said unto thee, 
Take up thy bed, and walk ? 

13 And he that was healed wist 

be noted, in order to fully apprehend 
the hypocrisy anl opposition to Jesus 
which characterized these men. 

13. Wist not. An old form of speech 
for knew not. It is not strange that the 
man was ignorant of the name of his 
benefactor. The fame of Jesus, al- 
though wide-spread enough to fill with 
dread and apprehension these unbeliev- 
ing rulers, had not yet fully reached 
the lower classes of the community, 
especially persons of the abject con- 
dition of this sick man. The next clause, 
for Jesus had conveyed himself away, &c. 
is also added as a reason, why the man 
did not know the name of Jesus. As 
soon as our Lord had bid him rise and 
walk, and before the man, who to his 
amazement was possessed of power to 
put into execution the command which 
thus suddenly and unexpectedly fell 
upon his ear, could find time to look 
after his benefactor, he had passed out 
of sight among the crowd. One who 
was thus suddenly restored to sound 
and vigorous health, after having been 
afflicted with disease for thirty-eight 
years, could hardly be expected to stop 
to make inquiries as to the name of 
the person, who had bid him rise 
up from his couch of suffering. In 
the exuberance of his joy, he would pro- 
ceed at once to his home. These con- 
siderations make it nowise strange that 
it should be as here related. Had con- 
veyed himself away ; more literally, had 
turned away. He passed immediately 
into the crowd, and thus escaped the 
notice of the man, who, as has been 
stated, was occupied with arranging his 
couch, so as to take it up and bear it 
away as he had been commanded. A 
multitude being in that place, and ren- 
dering it easy for Jesus to be lost among 
the crowd. " A comparison of this 
passage with 12:15-21; Luke 5: 14, 
John 6 : 15, will supply evidence of the 



A. D. 31.] 



CHAPTER V. 



95 



not who it was : for Jesus had 
conveyed himself away, a multi- 
tude being in that place. 

14 Afterward Jesus findeth him 
in the temple, and said unto him, 

truth of the Gospel narratives arising 
from the identity of Christ's character." 
Webster and Wilkinson. 

14. The man had probably gone up 
to the temple, as a suitable place for 
rendering thanks to God for his re- 
covery. Afterward; literally, after these 
things, implying that some time elapsed 
from the cure of the man to his meet- 
ing with Jesus in the temple. Imme- 
diate succession of time would have 
been denoted by the singular (see N. 
on v. 1); and it is not likely that the 
man would have gone up to the temple 
at least before the next day, especially 
as he had received so sharp a rebuke 
from the Jews, for carrying his bod on 
the sabbath clay. Jesus findeth him. 
Our Lord would not leave him until he 
had confirmed his faith and admonished 
him against a lapse into sin, to which, 
as we may gather from this narrative, 
he was in special danger from former 
sinful habits, or some natural inclina- 
tion of his physical or moral tempera- 
ment. Behold thou art made (literally, 
hast become) ichole. This confirms his 
recovery, and forms the basis of the 
admonition which follows. Sin no 
more. Webster and Wilkinson say, 
that there is no necessity for inferring 
from the words, that the man's disease 
had been the effect or punishment of 
vice, averring that no more, is to be in- 
terpreted of a state of progression, 
rather than of comparison with what 
has gone before (like no longer in 4 : 
42). I cannot but agree, however, 
with Stier, Tholuck, Alford, and other 
commentators, that it is here implied 
that his infirmity arose from some 
particular moral delinquency ; and that 
our Lord, in referring to a sin commit- 
ted thirty-eight years previous, gave to 
the man, as to the woman of Samaria, 
the highest evidence that he was fully 
conversant with all the circumstances 
of his past sinful life. Zest a worse 



Behold, thou art made whole : 
f sin no more, lest a worse thing 
come unto thee. 

15 The man departed, and told 

/Mat. 12:45; Ch. S : 11. 



thing, (literally, something worse) come 
unto thee. Trench observes, that "this 
expression gives us an awful glimpse of 
the severity of God's judgments. The 
infirmity had found him a youth and 
left him an old man ; it had withered 
up all his manhood, and yet a worse 
thing even than this threatened him, 
should he sin again." Of course wc are 
left in ignorance as to the precise sin, 
which had entailed upon the man such 
direful consequences. The lesson of 
instruction which all should draw from 
the incident, is not however impaired 
thereby, but rendered even more im- 
pressive, since it may be referred to any 
sin into which one may have fallen, and 
from the sad effect of which, by the 
grace of God, he is recovering and be- 
ginning to hope in a complete restora- 
tion to the path of virtue and recti- 
tude. Prof. Crosby remarks, that "if 
our Saviour does not refer to some 
previous vice, by which the man was 
brought into this crippled condition, 
that his words mean : ' Turn now from 
your sins, for if you persist in sin, you 
will come to a far worse condition than 
such bodily ailment as this from which 
I have released you.' " 

15. The man departed, &c. Some 
have attributed this to a desire on his 
part to curry favor with the Jews, by 
reporting to them the name of the man 
who had made him whole. But this is 
hardly reconcilable with v. 11, where 
he openly acknowledges his obligations 
to his unknown benefactor. It is 
rather to be attributed to the question 
proposed to him in v. 12, to which he 
felt bound to reply, coming as it did 
from those in high authority. In con- 
firmation of the good intentions of the 
man, it is to be noted, that he did not 
reply in the direct language which the 
question in v. 12 would seem to de- 
mand, that it was Jesus who had bid 
him take up his bed and walk, but that 



96 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 31. 



the Jews that it was Jesus, which 
had made him whole. 

16 And therefore did the Jews 
persecute Jesus, and sought to 

• it was Jesus who had made him whole, 
thus bearing witness the second time to 
the great cure which had been wrought 
in him. We would not therefore at- 
tribute to this man such monstrous in- 
gratitude, as reporting the name of 
Jesus with hostile intention, but rather 
refer his act to a want of quick perception 
to discern in the inquiries of the Jews 
(v. 12) their hostility to his benefactor, 
which, had he suspected, he would 
never in his honest simplicity have re- 
ported to them the name of the object 
of their intense hatred. 

16. Therefore ; literally, on account of 
this. The last clause explains the 
ground of their persecution. Did per- 
secute. The imperfect tense in the origi- 
nal, denotes that this was a continuous 
persecution. It ceased not from this 
time onward, but waxed more and more 
virulent, until they succeeded in accom- 
plishing his death. That the word per- 
secute, has here its bad sense, and not 
that of legal cognizance of crime, is 
evident from the next clause, and sought 
to slay him, which shows that their mur- 
derous hostility to Jesus would not have 
waited for legal forms, had it found op- 
portunity to compass its ends in any 
more certain and expeditious manner. 
Because he had done, &c. is not the real 
but pretended reason of their evil de- 
signs. 

17. Our Lord now condescends to 
address them at some length, and 
vindicate himself from the charge of 
having violated the sabbath. He an- 
swered the allegations implied in their 
hostility to him, or perhaps their open- 
ly expressed charges, in regard to his 
recent miracle on the sabbath. " The 
word answered, does not always imply a 
previous question addressed to the 
speaker, but sometimes only an occa- 
sion demanding explanations or re- 
marks." Webster and Wilkinson. My 
Father. Not our Father, as would alone 
be suitable for us. That he claimed in 



him, because he had done 
these things on the sabbath 
day. 

17 But Jesus answered them, 



this language a peculiar Sonship to the 
Father, and such as could be shared by 
no created being, is evident from v. IS, 
where the Jews understood him as claim- 
ing for himself equality with God. They 
were led the more to this from his aver- 
ment, that as God's providence operates 
with unceasing activity on the sabbath, 
as well as on any other day, so he pos- 
sessed an equal right with the Father to 
work on that day. They correctly in- 
ferred that one, who claimed the same 
right to work on the sabbath, as He 
who had ordained its observance, did 
thereby make himself equal with God. 
The sentiment is the same, although 
couched in different language, with that 
of the words he uttered on the occasion 
of his passing through the cornfields, 
shortly after this, the Son of man is Lord 
even of the sabbath day. See Ns. on 
Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6 : 
5. The prerogative of divinity could 
not be claimed in stronger or clearer 
terms. Hitherto, i. e. until the present 
time, ever since the creation. The rest 
spoken of in Gen. 2 : 2, was rest from 
the work of creation, and not from the 
exercise of his Almighty Providence, 
which is continually exerted in uphold- 
ing all things. See Heb. 1:3. There is 
not a moment of time, in which the Di- 
vine energy does not operate in sustain- 
ing and keeping the universe of mind 
and matter in orderly and harmonious 
action. And I work. Not separate 
from, but with God, in this providential 
upholding and governing of the uni- 
verse. The Father does not work in- 
dependent of the Son, nor the Son inde- 
pendent of the Father, but they work 
together in harmonious and ineffable 
union and love. Such is the plain dec- 
laration of our Lord, and so the Jews 
rightly understood him to aver. There 
is not the shadow of a doubt, that Jesus 
did here claim, and intended to claim, 
absolute equality with the Father. What 
is here most logically inferred, is dis- 



A. D. 31.] 



CHAPTER Y. 



97 



9 My Father worketh hitherto, and 
I work. 

18 Therefore the Jews h sought 
the more to kill him, because he 
not only had broken the sabbath, 
but said also that God was his 
Father, ■ making himself equal 
with God. 

17 Ch. 9 : 4; & 14: 10. 



tinctly stated in Col. 1 : 15-17 ; Heb. 
1 : 2, 3. Thus the great truth stated in 
1 : 1, is here confirmed by our Lord's 
own testimony respecting himself. 

18. At this assumption of equality 
with the Father, which they deem blas- 
phemous to the highest degree, the 
Jews are so exasperated, that they seek 
to put him to death. "We have no 
means of knowing whether this refers 
to their fixed murderous purpose, or to 
some sudden outbreak of fury seeking 
his immediate death. Probably the 
former is the more correct supposition, 
as in accordance with the usage of the 
Evangelist, had the latter been true, he 
would have mentioned it, as in 8 : 59 ; 
10 : 31. We see here as in subsequent 
instances, that instead of testing our 
Lord's claims by his miracles and doc- 
trines, and examining the Messianic 
predictions such as those in Isa. 9:6; 
Dan. 7 : 13, 14 ; Zech. 13 : 7, they 
close their eyes to the truth, and seek 
to silence his claims by effecting his 
death. In addition to the charge of 
breaking the sabbath, they now add 
that of blasphemy, in that he asserted 
an equality with God, by calling him his 
Father (literally, his own Father). This 
was the more serious charge, and one 
which they never lost sight of, until 
on the morning of his crucifixion, pre- 
tending that he had given utterance 
to blasphemous language in declaring 
himself to be the Son of God, they pro- 
nounced him worthy of death. See 
Matt. 26 : 64-66 ; Mark 14 : 61-64 ; 
Luke 22 : 70, 71. Making himself {hj 
calling God his own Father) equal with 
God. In this inference of the force 
and intent of his assertion, they were 
by no means mistaken. 
Yol. III.— 5 



19 Then answered Jesus and 
said unto them, Yerily, verily, I 
say unto you, * The Son can do 
nothing of himself, but what he 
seeth the Father do : for what 
things soever he doeth, these also 
doeth the Son likewise. 

^Ch. 7:19. 

*Ch. 10:30,33; Phi. 2:6. 

AVer. 30; ch.S: 23; &9 : 4; &12:49; &14: 10. 



19. Our Lord now reiterates and ex- 
pands his preceding declaration. He 
had in the briefest and most emphatic 
manner declared his essential unity 
with the Father, by claiming the perform- 
ance of the same works of providence. 
Now he proceeds to assert that so close 
and indissoluble is this unity of purpose 
and action, that the Son can do nothing 
of himself , but what he seeth the Father 
do, and that the Father doeth nothing 
which the Son doeth not likewise. In 
averring that the Son can do nothing of 
himself, our Lord means nothing more 
than that his essential unity with the 
Father is such, that he can do nothing 
contrary to his will and counsel. He 
does not avow any dependence or sub- 
ordination of rank or power, but the 
most entire harmony of will and action 
with his Father. This is evident from 
the context. The Jews had charged 
him with having violated the sabbath. 
Christ denies this on the ground, that 
his union with the Father was such, 
that he could do nothing but what was in 
perfect harmony with the will of God 
the Father. This being so, no sin could 
be chargeable upon him for healing 
the man on the sabbath day. The argu- 
ment then is clear and convincing, that 
Jesus here claims essential unity with 
the Father. But what he seeth the 
Father do, is equivalent to but what the 
Father does, and implies that the Son 
can do whatever the Father doeth. This 
is clearly and explicitly stated in the 
next clause, for what things soever he (i. 
e. the Father) doeth, these also doeth the 
Son likewise. Not only equal power, 
but the equal exercise of power is pre- 
dicated of the Father and Son. What 
accumulative proof is here furnished of 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 31. 



20 For l the Father loveth the 
Son, and sheweth him all things 

ZMt.3:17;ch. 3:35; 2 Pe. 1 : 17. 

the declaration made in the very first 
verse of John's gospel, the Word was 
God. This additional proof is the more 
valuable from the fact, that it was our 
Lord's own declaration, in view of the 
charge made against him by the Jews, 
that he had on this very occasion made 
himself equal with God. This was the 
time, if ever, for him to have disabused 
their minds of such a misconception of 
his language, had it been so. But in- 
stead of this, he goes on to assert in 
the very plainest terms, that such unity 
of essence subsists between the Father 
and Son, that there is not an act or 
work, in which they do not equally par- 
ticipate, so that it may be truly said, 
that what things soever the Father 
doeth, the Son doeth likewise. 

20. The argument of the divine na- 
ture of the Son is still accumulative. 
This verse serves to explain and confirm 
the preceding declaration. In v. 19 it 
was asserted that the Son could do 
nothing of himself (i. e. dissevered of 
all connection with the Father, which 
from the very unity of their being was 
an impossibility), but what he saw the 
Father do. Here the love of the 
Father towards the Son is affirmed to 
be such, that lie shows him all things 
that himself doeth. Hence as the Son 
can do those things which he seeth the 
Father do (v. 19), and as the Father 
of his boundless love shows him every 
thing which he himself doeth, it follows 
as a plain and irresistible inference, that 
the Son can and does do every thing 
which the Father does. Thus this verse 
reaffirms the declaration with which 
v. 19 closes, with the additional truth, 
that all this co-ordinate and co-working 
power is founded, not only upon an 
essential, but a love union of the 
Father and the Son. He will show him 
greater works than these, i. e. there will 
be wrought by the Son, in conformity 
with this spiritual intercommunication 
between the Father and the Son, great- 
er works than those which the Jews 



that himself doeth : and he will 
shew him greater works than 
these, that ye may marvel. 

had yet seen performed by Jesus. Ref- 
erence is had in these, to the miracles 
which he had wrought in attestation of 
his divine mission. One of these mir- 
acles was the healing of the infirm 
man, and was the occasion of the sub- 
lime discourse which he was now hold- 
ing with the Jews. These miracles were 
to be more and more glorious and sig- 
nificant of his divinity, until they were 
crowned by the raising of Lazarus from 
the dead, and his own resurrection from 
the grave and ascension into heaven. 
But these works were not to cease with 
his disappearance from earth. The rais- 
ing and quickening of the dead were 
committed unto the Son, to whom all 
judgment likewise was committed, so 
that eventually all should be brought to 
honor the Son, even as they honored 
the Father. Such is the train of 
thought, as the argument of the divine 
nature of the Son from the works given 
him to perform, progresses in vs. 21-24. 
Alford makes a distinction between the 
working of the Son in vs. 20 and 21, 
referring the former to his working in 
the state of his humiliation, in which 
the Father should by degrees advance 
him to exaltation and put all his ene- 
mies under his feet; the latter, to the 
working of the Eternal Son with God 
in heaven". But I see no reason for this 
distinction. The subject has reference 
to the Sou in his state of incarnation. 
The discourse is a vindication of him- 
self, as he stood before his enemies, 
from the charge of having violated the 
sabbath. There is nothing predicated 
of him in these verses, not even his 
office of final Judge, which refers not 
to him in his character of Messiah, God- 
man, Mediator. See Matt. 25 : 31. 
Tliat ye may marvel. Some interpret 
this as the purpose or design of the 
greater works which our Lord was to 
perform. This may be in a sense true, 
and yet it comports better with the 
general scope, to regard the word ren- 
dered that, as marking the result (see N. 



A. D. 31.] 



CHAPTER V. 



99 



21 For as the Father raiseth 
up the dead, and quickeneth them ; 

on Mutt, 1 : 22). The idea is that al- 
though they were iusensible to the 
power and grace displayed in the mir- 
acles he had hitherto wrought, yet the 
time was coming, when their admiration 
could no longer be withheld at the 
display of his mighty power. Even if 
the raising of Lazarus and his own 
resurrection and ascension failed to 
elicit their admiration, yet the scenes 
of the final judgment would command 
their wondering astonishment, and chal- 
lenge their acknowledgment of his 
supreme power and dignity as God's 
Son. See Philip. 2 : 10, 11. 

21. The argument, as it proceeds on 
from verse to verse, is climacteric. 
Our Lord shows his right to work on 
the sabbath in the way here referred 
to, by his miracles, and by averring that 
greater works were yet to be done by 
hira. In this verse, he includes in these 
greater works, the raising of the dead 
and the quickening agency to be exert- 
ed upon them. This is referred to again 
in more ample terms, in vs. 25, 28, 29. 
For as the Father, &c. This is confir- 
matory and explanatory of v. 20, show- 
ing in what the greater works there 
spoken of consists. Prof. Crosby makes 
the connection to be : " The Father lov- 
eth the Son (v. 20), for he shows him 
all his power even to the raising of the 
dead physically and spiritually (v. 21), 
and he has committed all judgment 
unto him (v. 22)." This is true, but the 
explication is more simple and log- 
ical, which makes the Father's love to 
the Son to be evinced by the display to 
him of the great works which he does 
(v. 20), and which are referred to in the 
verses immediately following as wrought 
by the Son. The train of thought is 
simply this : ' the love of the Father to 
the Son is manifested in his showing 
him (i. e. commissioning him to exe- 
cute) the stupendous works which he 
himself doeth, among which are the 
raising and vivifying the dead and judg- 
ing them at the last day.' As the Fa- 
ther, &c. Our Lord continues the form 



m even so the Son quickeneth whom 
he will. 

m Lu. 7 : 14; & 8 : 54 ; ch. 11 : 25, 43. 



of comparison by which equality and 
essential unity are established between 
him and the Father. Raiseth up the 
dead. This undoubtedly refers to the 
resurrection of the body at the last day. 
No other resurrection would produce 
the result referred to at the close of v. 
20. It would be a harsh and unintelli- 
gible transition from the physical to the 
spiritual, to make the greater works, 
spoken of in v. 20, to which the raising 
and quickening here referred to belong, 
relate to a moral resurrection and quick- 
ening to spiritual life. The majority of 
expositors interpret the passage of the 
resurrection of the body only. There 
are some, however, who refer it to a 
spiritual, moral resurrection. Tholuck, 
Neander, Olshausen, and Alford, make 
it include both those who are outwardly 
and spiritually dead. There is no objec- 
tion to this view, although the argument 
is more direct and simple, to refer it to 
the bodily resurrection alone. The 
resurrection is here attributed to the 
Father, in accordance with the belief 
of those with whom our Lord was con- 
versing. But the Son is declared to be 
possessed of the same quickening pow- 
er, and in the light of the New Testa- 
ment revelation, we know that the sum- 
moning of the dead from their graves 
at the last day, will be the act of God's 
Son, yet in the exercise of his Media- 
torial office, as vicegerent of the Father. 
This truth is brought out distinctly in 
Acts 17 : 31. Whom he will. The 
power to vivify is here declared to ac- 
company the will. We should guard 
against inferring from this, that a 
portion only of mankind are to be 
selected as the objects of Christ's vivi- 
fying power, the simple averment being, 
that his power to raise the dead is as 
unlimited as his will. This is however 
pre-eminently true of the spiritual res-, 
urrection, or quickening to spiritual 
life, of which our Lord is the original 
source. The bimembral form of the 
verb demands that we should read: 
even so the Son [raiseth and] quickeneth 



100 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 31, 



22 For the Father judge th no 
man, but n hath committed all 
judgment unto the Son : 

23 That all men should honour 

»Mt. 11:27; & 2S:1S; ver. 27; ch. 3:35; & 
17:2; Ac. 17:31; IPe. 4:5. 



whom he will. The raising of the dead, 
although apparently simultaneous with 
the quickening power, yet in the order 
of nature precedes it, and is a distinct 
act. 

22. In this verse we find the Son pos- 
sessed of the high function of final 
Judge, all judgment having been com- 
mitted to him by the Father. But this 
implies not only the power to raise and 
give life to the dead, but also that such 
power is actually committed to the Son. 
Hence the first clause for the Father 
judgeth no man, imparts to the preced- 
ing verse the additional idea, that the 
Son not only raises and quickens whom 
he will, but has this office delegated to 
him in his capacity of final Judge. It 
is a closely connected series of acts, 
and as the Father is declared to judge 
no man, so no one will be raised and 
brought to judgment, but through the 
divine power and agency of the Son. 
This verse then by its /or, not only ex- 
plains and confirms, but by implication 
enlarges the functions of the Son refer- 
red to in v. 21, and thus, as has been 
remarked in Note on v. 20, introduces 
an example of the great works commit- 
ted to the Son, in proof of the Father's 
love to him. Judgeth no man except 
through the agency of the Son. In 
view of the essential unity of the Fa- 
ther and the Son, what is done by the 
one is done by the other. But refer- 
ence is had here to the office possessed 
by the Son in his Mediatorial capacity. 
As God-man, he is to judge the world 
at the last day. See Acts 1*7 : 31. The 
office of judge anciently comprised in 
itself that of a ruler or king. Hence our 
Lord's kingly dignity incidentally is 
brought to view in this passage. See 
Matt. 25 : 34, 40. Hath committed all 
judgment unto the Son. As Bcdeemcr 
and Mediator, our Lord is officially sub- 
ordinate to the Father, and hence re- 



the Son, even as they honour the 
Father. ° He that honoureth not 
the Son honoureth not the Father 
which hath sent him. 



o 1 Jo. 2 : 23. 



ceives from Him the delegated office of 
final Judge. This however does not 
imply essential inferiority in the Son. 
All judgment, i. e. the entire work of 
judgment, all the prerogatives of the 
office of final Judge. The word all, 
implies that Christ is to be the sole 
Judge. 

23. In this verse, the end or pur- 
pose of thus committing all judgment 
to the Son is declared. Tlmt (here 
indicating both purpose and result) 
all men should honor, &c. The good 
will do this of their own choice, having 
escaped the condemnation of death 
through faith in God's Son ; the homage 
of the wicked will be compelled by the 
supreme power and dignity of the 
Judge. Thus "every knee shall bow 
at the name of Jesus, of things in hea- 
ven, and things in earth, and things 
under the earth ; and every tongue 
shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, 
to the glorv of God the Father." 
Philip. 2 : 10, 11. The verb shoidd 
honor, is here to be taken in the sense 
of should render homage and obedience. 
This equality of honor, resulting from 
the conferral of the office of final Judge 
upon the Son, is expressed negatively 
in the following sentence, he that honor- 
eth not the Son, &c. Not only is the 
honor of the Son to be equal to that 
of the Father, but no honor can be 
awarded to the Father, except it be like- 
wise bestowed upon the Son. Every 
profession of honor and reverence for 
the Father is empty and valueless, un- 
less accompanied by a feeling of equal 
respect and reverence for the Son. 
Thus the honor of the Father and the 
Son, is declared in the most emphatic 
terms to be one and indivisible. Who 
in face of such testimony as is here 
given, can look upon Jesus Christ as a 
mere created being? 

The negative in the first clause is dif- 



A. D. 31.] 



CHAPTER V. 



101 



24 Verily, verily, I say unto 
you, p He that heareth my word, 
and believeth on him that sent 
me, hath everlasting life, and shall 
p Ch. 8:16, 18; & 6:40, 4T ; & 8: 51 ; & 20: 31. 

fercnt from that in the second, and im- 
parts a conditional sense, he that honor- 
cth not the Son, in case that any one 
does not honor him. The negative in 
the second clause, honoreth not the 
Father, is positive and unconditional. 

24. This verse commences a new 
illustration of the life-giving power of 
the Son, and the ground on which it is 
exercised. It is evident that the dis- 
course is here of spiritual life bestowed 
upon the believer in Jesus Christ. This 
verse is therefore a sort of parenthetic 
illustration of the glory and dignity of 
Christ, as the author and source of all 
life, spiritual as well as physical. This 
is such an advance in the claim of God's 
Son to equal honor with the Father, 
that it is introduced by the usual for- 
mula of solemn confirmation, verily, 
verily. See N. on 3 : 3. The climacteric 
character of the argument for the dig- 
nity of God's Son, as evinced in this 
advance from a physical to a spiritual 
resurrection, would be all lost by the 
interpretation, which finds both the 
bodily and spiritual quickening taught 
in v. 21. Indeed the train of thought 
would be hopelessly confused by such 
an interpretation, for if spiritual quick- 
ening is taught in v. 21, the reference 
to it in this verse would be little more 
than a naked repetition. He that hear- 
eth. The mere external act of hearing 
is not here referred to, but that which 
is accompanied by inward belief. A 
twofold object of faith is here referred 
to, which is however essentially one and 
indivisible. In this clause, faith in 
Jesus Christ, and in the next, faith in 
the Father who sent him, is demanded 
as a condition of eternal life. Thus the 
close and inseparable union between 
the Father and Son, is still the great 
and prominent object held up before 
the mind. We are taught here, that 
an essential prerequisite to belief in 
God, is belief in his Son Jesus Christ. 



not come into condemnation ; 
q but is passed from death unto 
life. 

q 1 Jo. 3 : 14. 

Indeed belief in the Father on the tes- 
timony of the Son, who is the great 
Revcaler of the divine being and per- 
fections of God, presupposes a belief in 
the divine mission of the Son. Hath 
everlasting life, i. e. is an heir of the eter- 
nal glory and blessedness which God's 
people shall enjoy in heaven. The 
same truth is also expressed, according 
to John's custom, negatively, a?id shall 
not come into condemnation, i. e. shall 
not continue in the way of sin, until 
the judgment which awaits the trans- 
gressor overtakes him. It does not 
imply that previously to his belief in 
Christ, he was not in a state of con- 
demnation and death, for this is dis- 
tinctly asserted in the last clause, is 
passed from death unto life. The simple 
idea is that the believer shall not come 
into that state of final condemnation, 
in which those who are impenitent and 
unbelieving will be found at the last 
day. The word rendered condemnation, 
is the same which is translated judg- 
ment in v. 22, where it is evidently put 
for the office or function of judgment. 
The context clearly determines the cor- 
rectness of the translation condemna- 
tion, a sense which the word often has 
in the Xew Testament. See Matt. 23 : 
33 ; Mark 3 : 29 ; Heb. 10 : 2*7 ; James 
2:13; 2 Pet. 2:4. Is passed from 
death unto life. All men are by nature 
in a state of condemnation and death ; 
or as it is expressed in Eph. 2:1, are 
" dead in trespasses and sins." But the 
death of Christ has so removed the 
curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), that they 
who believe in him are no longer sub- 
ject to its pains and penalties, being 
kept by the power of God through faith 
unto salvation (1 Pet 1 : 5). Life and 
death are here strongly antithetic ; and 
the everlasting subjection of the soul 
to the one of these conditions for 
which in the present life it was fitted, 
can be no more plainly taught than in 



102 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 31. 



25 Verily, verity, I say unto 
you, Tiie hour is coming, and now 
is, when r the dead shall hear the 



this passage. Is passed. The principle 
of life is within him, and although the 
full measure of blessedness will not 
be attained this side the grave, yet the 
believer is in the present possession of 
the earnest of the inheritance, until the 
redemption of the purchased possession 
unto the praise of his glory (Eph. 1 : 
14). 

25. Verily, verily. This formula of 
asseveration attests the importance of 
the truth now to be revealed. And now 
is, i. e. the time is so near at hand that 
it may be said to be already present 
(see 4 : 23). The words are added to 
impart the idea of speedy approach to 
the preceding words, the hour cometh. 
They are omitted in v. 28, because the 
event there referred to is more remote. 
The dead. There arises here a very im- 
portant question, and one in reference 
to which the most pious and learned 
commentators are divided, whether our 
Lord refers to those naturally or to 
those spiritually dead. The preceding 
context, unless v. 24 be regarded as 
parenthetic, justifies the latter view ; the 
following context, the former view. Of 
those expositors who refer this to a 
spiritual awakening, some take the pas- 
sage solely in this sense : others, as in- 
cluding both a spiritual and physical 
resurrection. The reference to a spirit- 
ual resurrection, as has been remarked, 
is based on the kind of death referred 
to in the preceding verse. As the pas- 
sage from death unto life is there ac- 
knowledged by all, to denote a great 
spiritual vivification, so the resurrection 
of the dead at the voice of the Son of 
God, here spoken of, is thought to de- 
note a moral quickening process, which 
had even then begun under Christ's 
ministry, and would go on with increas- 
ing power, after his ascension and the 
descent of the Spirit upon the church. 
The advocates of this view harmonize it 
with the following context, by averring 
that vs. 28, 29 are introduced, to re- 
move all marvel that souls should be 



voice of the Son of God 
they that hear shall live. 



and 



r Ver. 28 ; Ep. 2 : 1, 5 ; & 5 : 14 ; Col. 2 : 13. 



quickened to spiritual life by a voice, so 
potent as to reach, as it will at the final 
judgment, all who are held in the em- 
brace of the grave, and awaken them 
to life. But this reasoning is hardly 
satisfactory, when it is remembered that 
the salvation of a soul from death, or 
the quickening to life of one who is spirit- 
ually dead, is regarded in God's word 
as one of the highest acts of omnipo- 
tence (Eph. 1 : 19), and therefore by 
no means less wonderful than the resur- 
rection of the natural body (vs. 28, 29), 
which it would be, if the argument pro- 
ceeds from a spiritual resurrection in v. 
25, to a physical one in vs. 28, 29, as 
those expositors teach, whose interpre- 
tation of the passage is above given. 

The commentators who refer this pas- 
sage to the resurrection of the body, 
claim its fulfilment in the raising to life 
of the daughter of Jairus, the widow's 
son at ISTain, and Lazarus. These they 
maintain are contrasted with the whole 
race of men, who (vs. 28, 29) are in like 
manner to come forth from their graves 
at the voice of the Son of God. The 
argument is, that it was comparatively 
no matter of wonder, that a few persons 
should be raised from the dead by a 
voice of such divine potency, that the 
millions held in the corruption of the 
grave, should at its bidding come forth 
to life at the last day. 

To the one or other of these views, 
every reader must incline, unless with 
Stier, Tholuck, and some other recent 
expositors, the reference is thought to 
be to both a moral and physical resur- 
rection. This is hardly admissible ac- 
cording to the strict laws of interpreta- 
tion ; and besides renders the whole 
passage confused and comparatively 
pointless. The power to produce a 
moral resurrection is implied in the 
power to raise the dead from their 
graves, as the latter is also implied in 
the former. But to suppose that our 
Lord has direct reference to both in the 
language here employed, is an adoption 



A. D. 31.] 



CHAPTER V. 



103 



of what is styled the double sense in its 
first form. 

As to which of the above-mentioned 
expositions is the true one, is a point 
quite difficult to determine. I am dis- 
posed, however, to refer the words here 
uttered by our Lord primarily to a 
physical resurrection, but by implication 
and inference to one also spiritual. The 
demands of the context seem best 
to be met by this interpretation. Jesus 
had been accused of violating the 
sabbath, by healing on that day the 
sick man. Tie justifies himself (v. 17) 
from the charge, by averring that as 
the Father worked in the providential 
upholding of the universe on that day, 
so he worked, and had a right thus to 
do. The Jews at this manifest assump- 
tion of equality with God, were violent- 
ly excited, and sought to kill him be- 
cause he had said that God was his 
Father, making himself equal with God 
(v. 18). Our Lord proceeds to show 
(v. 19), that so essential was the union 
between the Father and him, that the 
works of one were necessarily those of 
the other ; and hence he left them to 
draw the inference, that the healing 
of this man on the sabbath was in a 
sense the work of his Father as well 
as his own, and manifestly therefore 
not wrong. The subject of discourse so 
far as the works of our Lord were con- 
cerned, was the miracle wrought at the 
pool of Bethesda. But now (v. 20) 
Jesus goes on to say, that greater works 
than these (i. e. miracles of this sort) 
would the Father show him (i. e. give 
him power to do), so that their highest 
wonder would be elicited in view of 
them. Would not the Jews understand 
him to refer to works which would be 
cognizable to their natural senses, such 
as miracles, natural signs, physical 
phenomena? Most assuredly. They 
could not have understood him other- 
wise. The language would have been to 
them strange and wholly unintelligible, 
had it been respecting the new birth or 
a moral resurrection. Mcodemus could 
hardly understand the latter subject, 
even when declared to him in the sim- 
plest and plainest terms. Could the 
Jews have been presumed to understand 



Jesus, had he so abruptly passed from 
the miracle of Bethesda, to spiritual 
subjects which can only be spiritually 
discerned, and would therefore consti- 
tute, in the eyes of those with whom he 
was speaking, no evidence of his Mes- 
siahship or his equality with the Father ? 
The expression greater ivories, must 
therefore be referred to the miracles, 
which he subsequently wrought in con- 
firmation of his divine mission, including 
also the great and crowning miracle of 
his resurrection from the dead, and even 
running on in the future, so as to em- 
brace all the sublime manifestations, 
which he is to make of his power and 
dignity at the judgment of the great day. 
Hence the discourse advances naturally 
and clearly to the greater works or mani- 
festations which he far in the future, 
when the Son, to whom all judgment is 
committed, will summon the tenants of 
the grave to come forth and be judged 
at his tribunal. This reference to the 
vivifying power of the Son, is expanded 
and confirmed by the declaration made 
in v. 2-f , which is evidently parenthetic, 
that.in this judgment which is commit- 
ted unto the Son, all those who believe 
in his words and in the Father who sent 
him, shall escape condemnation, having 
already passed from a death in trespass- 
es and sin, to life in its highest spiritual 
sense. This verse, therefore, neither 
breaks up nor interrupts the train of ar- 
gument, which was that the Jews should 
behold with their own eyes such stupen- 
dous works wrought by Jesus Christ, 
that they would no longer be in doubt 
as to his equality and oneness with God 
the Father. It is simply interposed 
parenthetically to show of what infinite 
importance to the welfare of the immor- 
tal soul beyond the grave, is a firm and 
living faith in Jesus Christ, which alone 
in the judgment can avail to save men 
from the condemning sentence of God's 
law. 

This being the train of argument in 
the preceding context, it admits of 
scarcely a doubt, that the dead spoken 
of in v. 25, are the persons referred to 
in v. 21, and not the spiritually dead to 
whom reference is had in v. 24. 

The following context makes this ref- 



104 



26 For as the Father hath life 
in himself; so hath he given to 
the Son to have life in himself; 



JOHN. [A. D. 31. 

27 And s hath given him author- 



erence of the dead to those physically 
so, still more clear and pertinent. No 
one denies that the resurrection spoken 
of in v. 28, is that of the body. Equally 
clear is it, that there is a correspond- 
ence, if not a comparison, between this 
general resurrection at the last day, 
and the partial one referred to in the 
present verse. The dead in this pas- 
sage, corresponds to all who are in their 
graves, in v. 28. Both classes of per- 
sons were to hear the voice of the Son 
of God. In v. 25, the result is express- 
ed in the words they that hear shall live ; 
in v. 28, it is varied to shall come forth. 
Who can doubt that these correspond- 
ences indicate a reference to classes of 
persons in the same condition ? What 
this condition is we learn from v. 28, 
where the expression in the graves, 
proves beyond question that the physi- 
cally dead are referred to. Thus rea- 
soning back from v. 28, to v. 25, we 
arrive at the conclusion that the physi- 
cally dead are there the subject of dis- 
course. 

But the subsequent context proves 
this by another train of reasoning. The 
annunciation of the words in v. 25, that 
at his voice some were soon to come 
back from the abodes of death, was re- 
ceived doubtless with an astonishment, 
manifested in their looks, if not in low 
and murmuring words. In view of this, 
our Lord bids them cease marvelling at 
what he had announced, for that same 
voice at a coming hour should be heard 
by all the dead, who at the call of the 
Son of God should come forth from their 
graves, and receive the award dueto their 
works while on earth. This marks a 
clear and well-defined train of thought, 
and avoids the confusion of sense,which 
results from making the subject at one 
time a moral, and in the next breath, a 
physical resurrection. As has been re- 
marked, the greater works spoken of in 
v. 20, are such as would be seen by the 
natural eye, and produce in all the be- 
holders worjder and admiration. To 



s Ver. 22 ; Ac. 10 : 42 ; & IT : 31. 

these greater works, the resurrections 
spoken of in vs. 25, 28, 29, belong, 
and cannot therefore in either case be 
referred to a moral resurrection. 

Alford contends that the words they 
that hear (not they hearing) shall live, 
determines the verse to be spoken of a 
spiritual, and not a bodily awakening. 
But the necessity of such a conclusion 
is not apparent. We admit that the 
form of expression they that hear, im- 
plies only a partial resurrection, or that 
a portion only of the dead will hear this 
potent voice of God's Son. But is not 
this as equally applicable to persons 
physically dead, like Lazarus and oth- 
ers whom our Lord raised, as to those 
morally dead ? Lazarus heard the voice 
of the Son of God and came forth. The 
ears of others who were sleeping in 
the grave, were so sealed, that they 
heard it not and did not therefore 
come forth. But the time was to come, 
when all would hear that voice, and be 
raised from the dead to stand at the 
bar of judgment. Alford's objection 
becomes thus an argument in favor of 
the view which it was designed to op- 
pose. 

26. Here is a reiteration of the sen- 
timent of 1:4. The life here spoken 
of is not one of mere existence, for in 
that sense, the Son has as independent 
an existence as the Father, but is the 
life-giving power, by which the dead 
are to be raised as here asserted. This 
vivifying power is conferred by the 
Father upon the Son as God-man, so 
that he possesses it in himself and can 
exercise it upon whom he pleases. The 
word Son, has the same sense as in the 
next clause, Son of man. Alford, how- 
ever, contrasts it with the latter term, 
as denoting the Son in his higher di- 
vine nature, the Eternal Son of God. 
But it removes much of the complexity 
of this passage, to refer the whole dis- 
course to the Son in his character of 
Messiah, Mediator, God-man. The di- 
vine nature of the Lord Jesus is the 



A. D. 31.] 



CHAPTER V. 



105 



ity to execute judgment also, ' be- 
cause he is the Son of man. 
28 Marvel not at this : for the 

t Da. 7 : 13, 14. 

foundation, however, of the possession 
of this vivifying power, as to no mere 
man could be imparted this gift, so 
that he should have life in himself, as 
God has life in himself. But it is 
not the divine alone in Jesus which 
is referred to, but the divine and hu- 
man, so intimately and mysteriously 
blended in the person of Christ Jesus. 
This gives great force and beauty to 
this sublime discourse to the Jews. 
They had accused him of breaking the 
sabbath. He replies to their accusation, 
that his right to work on the sabbath 
was equal to that of the Father (v. 17), 
and that besides this inherent and es- 
sential prerogative of divinity, all pow- 
er had been committed to him by the 
Father, so that greater works than any 
which they had yet seen would be per- 
formed by him. Of these works, 
the great and crowning one, would 
be the raising of all the dead to judg- 
ment at the last day, in accord- 
ance with the economical arrangement 
of redemption, by which "all judg- 
ment was committed to the Son." This 
was not to excite the wonder of his 
auditors, for it had been given him of 
the Father to have life in himself, and 
that too in such unlimited measure, 
that he could impart life to whomsoever 
he pleased. To him also had been 
given authority to execute judgment 
(v. 27), because it was meet that he 
the Son of man should judge the world, 
into which he had come on this errand 
of love. This is the obvious train of 
thought, and forbids the supposition, 
that reference is had here to the Son 
in his original condition, as one of the 
persons in the Trinity, independent and 
apart from the complex nature, which 
he assumed in the work of human re- 
demption. 

27. Hath given him authority, &c. 

This is an emphatic repetition of what 

is asserted in v. 22. The life-giving 

power of the Son, and his office of 

Yol. III.— 5* 



hour is coming, in the which all 
that are in the graves shall hear 
his voice, 



Judge, are throughout" this whole dis- 
course placed in the closest connection. 
Indeed his power to raise the dead, 
seems to be spoken of as being essential 
to his office of final Judge. Because (i. e. 
seeing that) lie is the Son of man. The 
article is wanting in the original, and it 
would therefore have been a closer and 
better translation, because he is Son of 
man, i. e. has the character and nature 
of Son of man. "Who is so fit to sit 
upon the throne of judgment, as He to 
whom has been committed the work 
of man's recovery from sin and death, 
and who in the execution of his work, 
took upon himself man's nature, and 
represented in his own person both the 
human and divine ? In reference to the 
expression Son of man, see N. on Matt. 
8 : 20. This designation of God's Son, 
in the connection in which it here 
stands, is one of the strongest proofs 
of his human nature, which was denied 
by the younger Apollinaris or Apollina- 
rius, in the fourth century. If the Lo- 
gos, as he taught, was incarnate but 
not insouled, or had no human soul, 
then in what sense could he be the Son 
of man, or why was authority given 
him to execute judgment, as here de- 
clared, because he is the Son of man ? 
This denial of Christ's human soul, in- 
volves in it, a denial of his supreme 
divinity, for if he had no inferior na- 
ture, or was not God-man, how could 
authority be delegated to him, unless 
on the ground of the inferiority of the 
nature which he did really possess ? It 
was not and could not be as the su- 
preme God, that Jesus Christ was sub- 
ordinate to the Father, but as the in- 
carnate Son of God, having a "true 
body and a reasonable soul." 

28. The connection of this verse 
with v. 25, has been referred to in the 
note on that verse. In the plainest and 
most sublime terms, our Lord now as- 
serts, that a still greater exhibition of 
his power is to be made in the final 



106 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 31. 



29 u And shall come forth ; x 
they that have done good, unto 

u Is. 26 : 19 ; 1 Th. 4 : 16 ; 1 Co. 15 : 52. 
x Da. 12 ; 2 Mat. 25 : 32, 83, 46. 



resurrection. This event would be one 
of such amazing grandeur and power, 
that there would be no place for won- 
der at the previous and lesser displays 
of his power. It was an astonishing 
exhibition of his power, when, at his 
summons, Lazarus came forth from 
the grave. But how insignificant was 
this, compared with the calling into 
life of the whole human race at the last 
day. See Matt. 25 : 31 ; 1 Thes. 4:16; 
Rev. 20 : 12. Marvel not at this, i. e. 
at the annunciation made in v. 25. For 
the hour is coming. The event here 
spoken of lay far in the future, and 
hence the qualifying expression and 
now is, found in v. 25 is omitted. In the 
graves proves, beyond all question, that 
it cannot be a moral resurrection to 
which our Saviour refers. The key is 
thus furnished to the elucidation of the 
whole passage, which otherwise might 
have been rendered obscure by mis- 
taken views of the resurrection referred 
to in v. 25. All that are in the graves, 
is a circumlocution for all the dead. 
Some repose in costly sepulchres ; 
others, deprived of the rites of burial, 
or covered with scanty earth, have a 
resting place unknown to any eye save 
that of Omniscience ; some lie in the 
depths of the ocean ; the ashes of some 
have been scattered about by the winds 
of heaven. But not one will be over- 
looked in this grand assize of our race. 
All who have lived and died since the 
creation of man, will hear the voice of 
God's Son, and come forth from their 
graves to stand before His tribunal. 
Shall hear his voice. An audible voice 
is not necessarily referred to. The will 
or command of the Judge will be as 
potent in the unexpressed determina- 
tion of his divine mind, as though 
uttered in the loudest thunder. Yet it 
would be presumption to affirm, on the 
other hand, that there will be no audi- 
ble voice, in obedience to which the 
dead shall come forth from their graves. 
In Thess. 4 : 16, it is said that " the 



the resurrection of life ; and they 
that have done evil, unto the 
resurrection of damnation. 

Lord himself shall descend with a shout, 
with the voice of the archangel and 
with the trump of God." See also 1 
Cor. 15 : 52. We should hardly be 
warranted in view of such language, in 
affirming that there will be no openly 
expressed indication of the will of the 
Judge, on this dread occasion. How 
far angelic agency may be employed in 
gathering the nations before the throne 
of judgment, we have no certain knowl- 
edge, yet that such a service will be 
assigned them, appears quite probable 
from such passages as Matt. 13 : 39, 41, 
49; 25 : 31; 2 Thess. 1 : 1. 

29. And shall come forth from their 
graves. It would appear from 1 Thess. 
4 : 16, compared with Rev. 20 : 4, 5, 
that the pious dead will be raised first, 
who together with those who are alive 
on that day, shall be caught up in the 
clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and 
that this will constitute the Jirst resur- 
rection. With these as a grand and 
admiring retinue (see Jude 4), lie will 
come to execute judgment on all man- 
kind, the rest of the dead being then 
raised to receive the just award of their 
deeds. The time of this great trans- 
action is not to be limited by the terms 
hour and day, in which it is here and 
elsewhere designated. These expres- 
sions of time are to be taken in an 
indefinite sense. For aught we know, 
the preliminary and opening scenes of 
the judgment, together with the process 
of final adjudication, may occupy cen- 
turies of years, before the grand 
transaction is brought to a final close. 
They that have done good. "As our 
Lord himself teaches us, and so also 
the rest of Scripture, that there will be 
some who had never learned to know 
the name and person of the Lord Jesus 
(although they experienced in them- 
selves the distinctive energy of the 
Logos), we are led to a profounder 
consideration of the reason why the 
Lord here, as in Rev. 20 : 12, 13, men- 
tions works instead of faith or unbe- 



A. D. 31.] 



CHAPTER Y. 



107 



30 " I can of mine own self do 
nothing : as I hear, I judge : and 
my judgment is just; because ~ I 
seek not mine own will, but the 

y Yer. 19. 

lief." Stier. But in general it may 
be said that w6rka here, as in Matt. 
25 : 35, 36, are regarded as the index 
of the soul, and thus form the basis of 
judgment. The same principle is 
brought to view in Matt. 12 : 37, on 
which see Note. Resurrection of life, 
i. e. a resurrection to a life of endless 
happiness and glory. Resurrection of 
damnation (or condemnation). By the 
force of the antithesis, this may be 
termed a resurrection of death, or as 
Bengel expresses it, a resurrection from 
death to death. As the resurrection of 
life includes all happiness and glory, 
so this resurrection of death involves 
all suffering and debasement. Two states 
are here referred to so opposite and 
final, that were other proof wanting, 
it would make the recovery to holiness 
of the finally impenitent, a most hope- 
less thing. This coming forth from the 
slumber of the tomb to the resurrection 
of life and of damnation, is not to be 
regarded as the entering upon a state 
or condition, which in the coming ages 
will terminate, but one which is fixed 
and irreversible. See Matt. 25 : 46. 
It is worthy of remark, that this resur- 
rection of some to damnation furnishes 
additional proof, that a moral or spirit- 
ual resurrection is not here referred to. 
30. Our Lord in this verse refers 
again to the union, subsisting between 
him and the Father, which renders it 
impossible for him to do any thing 
of himself or apart from the Father. 
Hence his judgment cannot but be just. 
Can do nothing as Judge. This is 
implied in the next clause, as I hear 
(from the Father. See v. 19). I judge, 
i. e. my judgment shall be in perfect 
accordance with the will of the Father, 
and therefore my judgment is just. It 
is to be noticed how our Lord passes 
from the third (vs. 19-23) to the first 
person, thus referring to himself all that 



will of the Father which hath sent 
me. 

31 " If I bear witness of my- 
self, my witness is not true. 

z Mat. 26 : 39 ; ch. 4 : 34 ; & 6 : 38. 
a Seech. 8:14 ; Ee. 3:14. 

had been previously said of the Son, as 
the great Yivifier and Judge of man- 
kind. Because I seek, &c. This stands 
as a reason for the justice of his judi- 
cial decisions. Mine own will apart 
from that of the Father. But the will 
of the Father which cannot but be just. 
This closes up his vindication from the 
charge of having violated the sabbath 
by what he had done for the infirm 
man. He sought not to justify himself 
on the ground that it was an act of 
mercy or necessity (as in Matt. 12:3, 
12), but took the high position, that as 
his Father worked in his providential 
agencies on the sabbath, so the Son, 
united to him in the closest union of 
essence and love, had equal right to 
work on that day. This essential unity 
of the Son with the Father, he proceed- 
ed to confirm and illustrate by the 
high office-work of raising to life and 
judging men, committed by the Father 
to the Son. The supreme divinity of 
the Son is here taught ; for if he were 
less than God, words of greater blas- 
phemy were never uttered, than those 
spoken by Jesus on this occasion. 

31. Our Lord now by a natural and 
easy transition, proceeds to appeal to 
the various kinds and sources of testi- 
mony by which his claims are substan- 
tiated. He had previously appealed to 
his works (v. 20), but somewhat inci- 
dentally, and testimony from that source 
is again referred to in v. 36. If I bear 
witness, &c. There is some difference 
of opinion, whether this is a direct and 
absolute assertion, or whether the idea 
intended to be conveyed is, that if he 
bore witness of himself alone, his wit- 
ness was not valid in the Jewish legal 
sense (see Deut. 17 : 6 ; 19 : 15). The 
latter I take to be the true interpreta- 
tion, although the former would contain 
a great truth ; for such is the intimate 
and essential union, declared in vs. 



108 



JOHN. 



[A. D.31. 



32 * There is another that bear- 
eth witness of me ; and I know 
that the witness which he wit- 
nesseth of me is true. 

b Mt. 3:17; & 17: 5; ch. 8: IS; 1 Jo. 5,6,7,9. 

17-30 to subsist between the Father 
and Son, that if the thing were possible 
that he could testify of himself apart 
from the will and purpose of the Father, 
it would stamp with falsehood his whole 
statement. See 8 : 14, 17. But the 
words of myself , are not the same as in 
vs. 19, 29, but should be translated 
concerning or about myself. Alford's 
explanation is, that the office-work of 
the Son was to speak not of himself 
but of the Father. If he transgressed 
this law of his mission, and resorted to 
means of self-glorification, it would be 
a falsification of the truth of God, as 
manifested in the Son. But while all 
this is so, yet the following context 
points so directly to the substantiation 
of our Lord's claims, on evidence such as 
is regarded legal and competent in the 
Jewish civil law, that we must assign 
to the passage the sense I have above 
given. So Hutcheson with his usual 
discrimination remarks : " Christ by this 
sentence doth not grant this as true, 
for the contrary is asserted in 8 : 14, 
but only by way of pretention passeth 
it, to make way for the following testi- 
monies of himself, that he might let 
them see that he had witnesses beside to 
convince them, though he were silent." 
32. Tliere is another, &c. To whom 
does this other witness refer? Some 
expositors say John the Baptist. But 
the testimony of John is referred to in 
v. 33 by a verb in the past tense ; and in 
v. 34, our Lord explicitly declares that 
he needs no human testimony in an af- 
fair of such, high moment. This he 
would not have done, had ho not been 
in possession of ample testimony from 
a higher source. There is also a dig- 
nity and confidence of appeal to this 
other witness, which precludes the idea 
of its reference to John. There can be 
no doubt then, from these and other 
reasons which might be given, were it 
necessary, that the witness here spoken 



83 Ye sent unto John, e and he 
bare witness unto the truth. 

84 But I receive not testimony 
from man : but these things I say, 
that ye might be saved. 

c Ch. 1 : 15, 19, 27, 32. 



of is none other than the Father. This 
is confirmed by v. 36 (see also 8: 18), 
where the expression greater witness, 
referring to his works and also to the 
personal testimony of the Father, is a 
repetition of our Lord's words in the 
present passage, "I know that the 
witness, which he witnesseth of me is 
true." The validity of the testimony 
as seen in its high source, is in both 
verses affirmed in the strongest terms. 
I know that the witness, &c. "His as- 
sertion of his own consciousness and 
certainty of the truth of his Father's 
testimony concerning him, implies a 
confidence that it will be placed be- 
yond all doubt and objection." Web- 
ster and Wilkinson. There is, however, 
a deeper significancy in our Lord's as- 
sertion of his Father's veracity, and 
that is, his conscious knowledge of 
what he asserts, from his essential 
union with the Father. These great 
utterances of his are not to be inter- 
preted as isolated and disconnected, 
but with a due regard to the general 
scope and drift of the discourse, which 
is here the vindication of himself from 
the charge of violating the sabbath, by 
averring his right to act as he had 
done, founded upon his equality with 
God. 

33-35. The Jews would naturally re- 
fer the witness spoken of in v. 32, to 
John. In correcting this impression, 
our Lord alludes to the testimony of 
John in reply to their message (1:19- 
27), as being true. But in support of 
the extraordinary claims which he had 
put forth, he would not rely upon hu- 
man testimony, which the nature of the 
subject might lead his hearers to reject 
as inconclusive. In thus disclaiming 
all dependence on human testimony in 
proof of his divine character and mis- 
sion, he prepared the way for the great 
declaration, which he is about to make 
in vs. 36-38. 



A. D. 31.] 



CHAPTER V. 



109 



35 He was a burning and d a 

shining light : and e ye were will- 
ing for a season to rejoice in his 
light. 

36 But-^I have greater witness 

d 2 Pe. 1 : 19. 

e See Mt. 13 : 20; & 21 : 26 ; Ma. 6: 20. 

But these things I say, i. e. I make 
this allusion to John's testimony, in or- 
der that it may be seen that I am not 
without the highest human testimony, 
if required to support my claims. Tes- 
timony ; literally, the testimony, i. e. my 
testimony, such as is necessary to the 
support of my claims. This he will not 
receive from John, for as Zelter observes, 
" where is the ambassador of a king, who 
instead of seeking his authentication dis- 
tinctly from his own sovereign himself, 
would appeal to the testimony of the 
secretary to his embassy?" That ye 
might be saved, i. e. to remove from 
your mind every doubt which might 
impede your salvation. 

35. In conformity with the gracious 
intention expressed in the preceding 
verse, our Lord goes on to speak of 
the high mission and moral dignity of 
John. He was a burning and shining 
light. The words burning and shining, 
are not used of light underived or in- 
dependently possessed, but of that 
which is lit up and shines from anoth- 
er source. John was a light shining 
brightly indeed, but yet with beams 
reflected from that Light, " which light- 
eth every man that cometh into the 
world" (1 : 9). The past tense of the 
verb, shows that John was already cast 
into prison, if not executed. Ye were 
willing, &c. This refers to the im- 
pression made by John upon the minds 
of the Jewish priests and rulers, but 
which was too evanescent to produce 
any real or lasting reformation of char- 
acter. See Matt. 3 : 7. The verb ren- 
dered were luilling, is indicative of some- 
thing more than a mere willingness. 
It implies active choice and purpose, 
and shows that they took delight in at- 
tending upon John's ministry, or as 
Hutcheson quaintly expresses it, "were 
much taken up with him." For a season, 



than that of John : for the 9 works 
which the Father hath given me 
to finish, the same works that I 
do, bear witness of me, that the 
Father hath sent me. 



gCh, 



/'l Jo. 5:9. 

:2;&10:25;.& 15:24. 



i. e. for a brief interval. The word lit- 
erally signifies hour, the use of which 
in this indefinite sense is common in all 
languages. Rejoice in his light, i. e. 
listen to his instruction and rejoice that 
a prophet of such celebrity had been 
sent to the nation. They also rejoiced 
at the burden of his proclamation, that 
the kingdom of heaven was at hand, 
and the Messiah about to come, al- 
though their views of this event were 
very erroneous. The metaphor is con- 
tinued from the preceding clause, a 
great and brilliant light being a natural 
incitement to joy. 

36. The order in which the various 
kinds of testimony arc here adduced is 
climacteric, or as Stier expresses it, 
there is " a gradation of energy." 
From John's testimony there is an as- 
cent, through that of miracles and other 
wondrous manifestations, to the word 
of God, which is highest of all. But I 
have greater witness. The presence of 
the article in the original requires the 
translation, but the witness which I have 
is greater than [the witness of] John. 
These words are repeated from v. 32, 
on account of the parenthetical verses 
33-35, introduced to show, that although 
John's witness of him was true, yet he 
was not dependent upon that to prove 
his high character and mission. The 
witness of the Father was twofold, the 
works which he gave Jesus to do, and 
his written word. The works here 
spoken of have primary reference to the 
miracles which our Lord wrought, but 
Olshausen is wrong in restricting them 
solely to these miraculous manifesta- 
tions. Stier and Tholuck more cor- 
rectly make the expression embrace the 
entire sphere of the Messiah's activity, 
his teachings and life, indeed all that is 
included in the work spoken of in 17 : 4. 
The works to which our Lord here ap- 



110 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 31. 



37 And the Father himself, 
which hath sent me, h hath borne 
witness of me. Ye have neither 
heard his voice at any time, l nor 
seen his shape. 



peals, are undoubtedly the same as those 
referred to in vs. 20-30, comprising all 
his acts during his earthly ministry and 
onward to the resurrection and judg- 
ment of all mankind at the last day. 
In all these works, the Father bears 
testimony to the divine mission of the 
JSon, because as Mediator they were 
given him of the Father to do, and in- 
deed in 14: 10, they are declared to be 
done by the Father who dwelleth in the 
Son. Thus these works of Christ are 
virtually the testimony of the Father 
himself, being the result of the media- 
torial power which the Son officially 
received from the Father. It hardly 
need be said that the term works, is 
here and elsewhere inclusive also of his 
doctrines and instructions, which no 
less than his miracles proved his divine 
mission to man. 

37-38. And the Father himself, &c. 
Besides the mediate testimony which 
the Father gave, by endowing the Son 
with miraculous powers, and commit- 
ting to him all judgment (see v. 22), he 
had given also immediate and personal 
testimony that Jesus was his divine 
Son. That new and distinct testimony 
is here introduced, is rendered apparent 
by the pronoun himself, which opposes 
the Father's testimony, not only to 
that of John (vs. 33-35), but also to 
that furnished by the works which the 
Father gave Jesus to do (v. 36), This 
witness of the Father is therefore some- 
thing more than the works of Jesus. 
To what then does it refer? Cyril, 
Theophylact, and Calvin, refer it to the 
witness of the prophets, comprising all 
the previous forms of divine revelation. 
Bengel after Chrysostom finds in it an 
allusion to the direct testimony of God 
at the baptism and transfiguration of 
Jesus. Olshausen refers it to the direct 
operation of the Spirit of God upon 
man. To all these views there are 
weighty objections, except to the first, 



38 And ye have not his word 
abiding in you : for whom he hath 
sent, him ye believe not. 



h Mat. 3 : IT ; & IT : 
iT>e. 4:12; ch. 1:18; 



5; ch. 6:27; &8:1S. 
ITi. 1:17:1 Jo. 4:12. 



which refers the personal testimony of 
the Father to the prophetic declarations 
of God in the Scriptures. This is 
brought out more fully in v. 39. Ye 
have neither heard his voice, &c. As 
this reads in our common translation, 
it appears to be directly opposed to the 
argument, that the Father's testimony to 
the divine mission of his Son was so di- 
rect and palpable that all excuse for the 
want of faith in him was taken away. 
Prof. Stuart and some others, there- 
fore, prefer to give it the interroga- 
tive form, have you not heard Ids voice 
and seen his shape ? In this way refer- 
ence is supposed to be had to the voice 
which was heard, and the shape which 
descended and rested upon him, at his 
baptism. But the Greek does not seem 
to be susceptible of such a translation, 
nor does the following context justify 
it, for we should expect the same inter- 
rogative form in the next clause, which 
would give the false sense, have ye not 
his word abiding in you ? It may be 
further objected to this view, that we 
have no evidence, that the people had 
any personal knowledge of the descent 
of the Spirit upon Jesus at his baptism, 
or that they heard the words then, 
uttered from heaven. Indeed in 1 : 32, 
as well as in Matt. 3 : 16, in the words 
he saw, the contrary to this is very 
strongly implied. The descent of the 
Spirit also formed a part of the testi- 
mony of John (1: 32-34), and cannot 
therefore be taken as new and inde- 
pendent testimony, such as the context 
proves this to be. 

The difficulty which Prof. Stuart felt 
and sought to avoid, by giving the 
sentence an interrogative form, must 
then be solved in some more satisfac- 
tory manner. What then is the gene- 
ral scope and argument? Our Lord 
asserts that he has another witness, not 
John, for in regard to the divinity of 
his claims he seeks not human testi- 



A. D. 31.] 



CHAPTEE V. 



Ill 



39 * Search the Scriptures ; for 
in them ye think ye have eternal 

*I&8:20; & 34:16; Lu. 16:29; v. 46 ; Ac. 
17:11. 



mony, but the Father himself who has 
borne witness of him. He proceeds to 
say that this was not done by an audible 
or visible manifestation (see 1 : 18), as 
their unbelief and hardness of heart 
would prompt them to require (Matt. 
12 : 39). Nor did the word of God so 
abide in their heart, as to produce an 
inward conviction, or what might be 
termed a witness of the Spirit, that 
Jesus was the Messiah. This rejection 
of the indwelling word was evinced, by 
their unbelief in him whom God had 
sent (v. 38, end). Yet although they 
had seen and heard no direct commu- 
nication from God, they were in pos- 
session of the Scriptures, by searching 
which they could learn what God had 
said concerning the Messiah, and see 
how these predictions were all fulfilled 
in him. This gives an appropriate and 
well connected sense, and does no vio- 
lence to the original Greek. There is 
another solution which some may pre- 
fer, and. which seems to be hinted at 
by Webster and Wilkinson, that there 
is an allusion to the direct testimony 
furnished at his baptism, but not 
directly to them. ' " Ye have neither 
heard his voice nor seen his shape," 
and yet a voice was heard and a shape 
seen on the bank of Jordan, which 
fully attested my divine mission and 
relation to the Father.' The expression 
his word abiding in you, seems to refer 
to that inward light and consciousness 
of truth, which God by his Spirit gives 
to those who trust in Him, and earnestly 
seek by prayer his guidance and favor. 
In all such, the word of Christ dwells 
richly in all wisdom (Col. 3 : 16), being 
hid away in the heart and giving light 
to the understanding. 

39. Search the Scriptures. Some of 
the best commentators read this as an 
assertion, instead of a command. Ye 
search the Scriptures, i. c. you profess- 
edly resort to the Scriptures as the 
word of God containing eternal life, 
and yet although they testify so fully 



life : and l they are they which 
testify of me. 

I De. 13 : 15, IS ; Lu. 24 : 27 ; ch. 1 : 45. 



of me, " ye will not come to me, that 
ye may have life." This sense is 
natural and pertinent, and does no 
violence to the original, which may be 
read as an indicative as well as an im- 
perative. I prefer however the sense 
given in our common version. Search 
the Scriptures (i. e. read them carefully) ; 
for in them ye (rightly) think ye have 
eternal life (i. e. the revealed Avay of 
eternal life): and (yet) they are they 
which testify of me. It is as though 
our Lord had said, 'the Father has 
testified of me, not by an audible voice 
or visible shape, but by his word, which 
you rightly receive as containing the 
doctrine of eternal life. Now search 
these Scriptures anew. They are full 
of predictions respecting me. In them 
you will find the clearest and most ex- 
plicit testimony of the nature of my 
mission, and the truth of my claim to 
the Sonship of God.' This is a more 
simple and pertinent train of thought, 
than can be obtained by reading the 
verb search, as an indicative ye search. 
The words ye think ye have eternal life, 
refer probably to the dependence on 
the letter and external ordinances of 
the law, which characterized the Jews 
of that time, and to which they looked 
for acceptance with God. Our Lord 
virtually tells them that the law and 
ordinances, as well as the prophecies 
of the Old Testament, have their fulfil- 
ment in him, and therefore it will be 
necessary for them to read anew the 
sacred oracles, and learn their true im- 
port. With this general exposition 
Stier accords in these impressive words : 
" If the testimony of the Scriptures is 
actually the last and greatest, and if on 
that account the Lord now first refers 
to them ; if, as we have seen, the un- 
belief of the Jews toward Jesus was 
fundamentally based on their misunder- 
standing of those Scriptures, what could 
have been more proper than the change 
and progression of the discourse into 
an imperative ? We cannot but expect 



112 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 31. 



40 m And ye will not come to 
me that ye might have life. 

41 * I receive not honour from 
men. 

mCh. 1:11; & 8: 19. 
wVer. 34;lTh. 2:6. 



from Him who now speaks that they may 
have life, that He would not dismiss 
them with nothing but reproaches, 
rather that He would send them away 
with exhortation and hope. It is to us 
as if He would say — Ye sent in vain to 
John, who sent you back to me ; I 
m) 7 self stand before you, but ye know 
me not ; I now therefore send you back 
and refer you to your own Scriptures 
again." 

40. The general connection is this : 
'Ye profess great veneration for the 
scriptures ; ye think that in them ye 
have eternal life, and yet although they 
so abundantly testify of me, ye will not 
come unto me that ye may have life.' 
The clause that ye may have life, de- 
notes not purpose, but result (see N. on 
Matt. 1 : 22), and is opposed to the vain 
reliance on empty forms and ceremo- 
nies implied in the clause, " in them 
ye think ye have eternal life." It 
is here charged upon them, that in 
the very Scripture, to which they resort 
professedly to find the way of eternal 
life, is the most abundant evidence, 
that the only true and living way, is the 
very one they are now so obstinately 
rejecting. Life is here to be taken in 
the sense of eternal life, as is evident 
from the preceding verse. 

41, 42. This verse begins what Stier 
calls the third part of the whole dis- 
course. Verses 19-30 contain continu- 
ous promising and threatening asser- 
tion ; vs. 31-40, the reproving appeal to 
the Father's testimony concerning his 
Son in whom they believed not ; now 
in vs. 41-47, follow warnings based up- 
on the principle and results of unbelief. 
As it respects v. 40, it is evidently an 
emphatic but somewhat varied repeti- 
tion of what is asserted in v. 34. As 
our Lord was not dependent upon hu- 
man testimony to the validity of his 
high claims, so he sought not human 



42 But I know you, that ye 
have not the love of G-od in you. 

43 I am come in my Father's 
name, and ye receive me not : if 
another shall come in his own 
name, him ye will receive. 

applause. What was the praise of men 
to Him, whose relations to the Father 
were so intimate, and to whom had 
been committed the office of raising 
from the dead and judging mankind at 
the last day ? I receive not. 'I accept 
not ; I have need of no human honor 
or applause.' But I know you, &c. ' You, 
who make your chief good to consist in 
the honor which you receive one from 
another, cannot appreciate this. Your 
rejection of this divine testimony in 
my favor, shows that you have not the 
love of God in you.'' The assertion of 
our Lord that he receives not honor 
from men, does not imply that men are 
not to honor him (see v. 23), or that he 
is not pleased to receive the homage 
of the broken hearted and believing 
soul. But the idea is that he covets 
not human applause, and will not re- 
ceive it when offered him (see as an il- 
lustration of this, 6: 15). This desire 
of worldly honor and praise, was the 
very thing which blinded the minds of 
the Jews to his claims (see v. 44). 

42. But I know you, &c. Here gleams 
forth again a ray of his divinity. He 
had declared his knowledge of the 
deep things of God, by his essential 
union with the Father ; he now avers 
that he penetrates the thoughts of 
those whom he addressed, and knows 
that the love of God is not in them. 
It was no inference from what they 
had said and done, but direct cogni- 
tion, I know you, &c. Thus to the end 
of this sublime discourse with the 
Jews, he retains the high position and 
prerogatives, which he had assumed in 
the outset, as the Eternal Son of God. 
Love of God has here the objective 
sense of love to God. They were not 
actuated in any thing which they did by 
a desire to promote God's glory. Their 
ends and aims were all selfish. 

43. In this verse is priven the result 



A. D. 31.] 



CHAPTER V. 



113 



44 ° How can ye believe, which 
receive honour one of another, 

o Ch. 12 : 43. 



of a heart devoid of love to God. It 
leads to the rejection of every thing 
good and true. Christ came in his Fa- 
ther's name and was their true Messiah. 
But him they rejected. Another of 
like selfishness with themselves, and 
coming in his own name, they were 
ready to receive. What is asserted 
therefore in this verse, is a proof of the 
truth of the preceding allegation. I am 
come as Messiah. In my Father's name, 
i. e. with the most full and satisfactory 
credentials, that I act under his sanc- 
tion and authority. Receive me not, i. 
e. believe not in my divine mission. If 
another shall come, &c. An obvious ref- 
erence is here made to the false Christs 
who afterwards came, all of whom 
found more or less adherents among 
the Jews. See Matt. 24 : 24. These 
false Christs, of whom Tholuck re- 
marks that in the course of history six- 
ty-four have appeared, all pretended 
that they were sent of God, but in re- 
ality they came in their own name, and 
looked only to their selfish interests. 
That such manifest impostors should be 
hailed as the Messiah, while Jesus, 
whose works and doctrines have stood 
the searching test of more than eigh- 
teen centuries, was rejected and cruci- 
fied by the Jewish people, was the 
most convincing proof, that the love of 
God was not at all in their heart. Al- 
ford thinks that the words, another 
shall come in his ovm name, are spoken 
primarily of the false or Idol-Messiah, 
the Antichrist, who shall appear in the 
latter days. See 2 Thess. 2 : 8-13. But 
it seems quite evident that another, is 
used in a generic or collective sense of 
all the false Christs, who made their 
appearance in the time of our Lord and 
afterwards, and not of any one in par- 
ticular. In his own name ; literally, in 
the name (that which is) his own. This 
collocation brings out more emphati- 
cally the contrast between Jesus Christ 
and these false Messiahs ; the former 
coming in his Father's name, the latter, 
in their own name, and for their own 



and seek not p the honour that 
cometh from God only ? 

p Bo. 2 : 29. 

selfish ends. Him ye will receive. One 
of these false Christs, Bar Cochba, had 
twenty-four thousand adherents. 

44. In the preceding verse the fact 
was asserted that Jesus was rejected, 
while Antichrist, or the false Christs 
which were to come, would be received. 
The reason is here given in their strong 
desire for human applause, and disre- 
gard of the honor that cometh from 
God only. The words how can ye be- 
lieve, refer not to any physical disability, 
but to the inveterate unwillingness 
spoken of in v. 40. So deeply seated 
was this aversion to God's Son, as to 
effectually preclude their approach to 
him, and constitute an impediment in 
the way of true saving faith, which 
would never be removed, unless by the 
agency of God's Spirit renewing the 
heart, and bringing it into sympathy 
with divine truth. Which receive honor, 
&c. A desire for worldly honor is here 
the prominent idea. So deeply seated 
and absorbing was this, that the self- 
denying doctrines of Jesus were offen- 
sive to them, and awakened their most 
strenuous opposition. One of another ; 
literally, from one another. The prepo- 
sition employed in the original denotes 
the twofold relation from one towards 
one, and refers here not only to the 
reception of honor from, but also to 
its voluntary conferral upon another. 
The bestowment of honor upon man, 
which belongs properly to God, is a sin 
no less heinous than that of an in- 
ordinate love of human praise and 
distinction. And seek not the honor, 
&c. This is placed in strong antithesis 
with their selfish aims and ends. The 
friendship of the world is enmity to 
God (James 4 : 4). The one cannot 
subsist with the other. Those who 
possess the praise of men, cannot at the 
same time possess that of God (Rom. 
2 : 29). From God only ; literally, 
from the only God, which Alford says, 
"is put in contradistinction to the idol- 
atry of the natural heart, which is ever 
setting up for itself ©ther sources of 



114 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 31. 



45 Do not think that I will ac- 
cuse you to the Father : q there 
is one that accuseth you, even 
Moses, in whom ye trust. 

q Eo. 2:12. 

honor, worshipping man or self." But 
the common rendering is preferable, 
the adverb being changed from its na- 
tural position after the verb for the sake 
of emphasis. " God alone, i. e. God the 
only Being to seek it from." Webster 
and Wilkinson. The same preposition 
with the twofold sense of from one 
towards one, is here employed in from 
God, as in the previous clause one of 
another. God is more willing to bestow 
honor upon those who desire it from 
Him, than they are to receive it, so 
that the idea indicated by the preposi- 
tion is in this respect stronger and more 
enlarged, than in its previous reference 
to the honor which men not only seek, 
but are fond of bestowing upon one 
another. 

45. Assuming that condemnation will 
follow such a substitution of the love 
of self for that of God, our Lord pro- 
ceeds to show by whom the accusation 
of unbelief and sin will be pressed upon 
the notice of the Father. Do not think 
that I, &c. ' Do not regard me as utter- 
ing any threat, that I will become your 
accuser before the Father, for your 
unbelief in him whom He hath sent.' 
Our Lord came to save and not to 
condemn (3 : 17). His office-work is 
one of intercession with the Father. 
Even in his office of final Judge, he 
acts not the part of an accuser, but 
judges men " out of those things which 
are written in the books according to 
their works" (Rev. 20 : 12). There is 
one that accuseth you, even Moses. The 
original has an energy of expression, 
which we cannot well transfer into 
English. It is as though it had been 
said, ' there is already an accuser, 
Moses' ; or ' you have your accuser, 
Moses.' The law is here personified in 
Moses, in order to correspond to the 
personal I. See Luke 16 : 29 ; 2 Cor. 
3:15. In whom. The preposition in 
the original, gives the sense in or upon 



46 For had ye believed Moses, 
ye would have believed me : r for 
he wrote of me. 

fGe. 3:15; &12:3; &1S:18; & 22: IS; & 
49: 10; Be. 18: 15, 18 ; ch. 1:45; Ac. 26:22. 

whom you place your trust. The very 
law upon which they placed such exter- 
nal honor, and in which they trusted 
with such reliant self-righteousness, 
was to be their accuser in the day of 
final account. They had overlooked 
and neglected its spirit, and substituted 
for its living demands, the most empty 
forms and ceremonies. The law then, 
broken and dishonored both in letter 
and in spirit, would be their accuser at 
the bar of judgment, and demand the 
infliction of its fearful penalties. 

46. Had ye believed Moses. The Jews 
were loud in their profession of faith 
in Moses. But their rejection of Christ, 
in whom the law with its typical rites 
and ceremonies found its highest and 
most perfect fulfilment, proved the 
hypocrisy of their professions. Hence 
this verse is introduced by for, as fur- 
nishing the ground or reason why Moses 
would act the part of an accuser against 
them. Ye would have believed me. The 
Mosaic code pointed so directly to 
Christ, and found such an exact fulfil- 
ment in him, that a belief in the one, of 
necessity implied a belief in the other. 
Hence unbelief in Christ furnished the 
most indubitable evidence of want of 
faith in Moses. For he wrote of one. 
The reference is thought by some to be 
to Deut. 18 : 15, 18, but it is better with 
Bengel, to refer it to the spirit and 
teaching of all the Mosaic writings. 
The tense in the original gives the sense 
he always, wrote, or in every thing which 
he wrote. See N". on Luke 24 : 27, 44. 

4*7. This is the converse of the pre- 
ceding verse, with the additional idea 
of the impossibility of believing in 
Christ, unless there is a full and cordial 
belief in the spirituality of the Mosaic 
writings. Whoever trusted in the ex- 
ternal forms and ceremonies of the law 
for salvation, overlooked its true import 
and spirit, and would never seek for 
justification through faith in the Son of 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



115 



47 But if ye believe not his 
writings, how shall ye believe my 
words ? 

a Mat. 14 : 15 ; Ma. 6 : 33 ; Lu. 9 : 10, 12. 



God. "Moses preaches the necessity 
and awakens the need of regeneration ; 
and how can he who has rejected that, 
believe the testimony of the Saviour ? " 
Stier. How shall ye believe. See X. on 
Matt. 12 : 34. The argument is a for- 
tiori (see N. on Matt. 5 : 15). They 
pretended the highest respect for the 
writings of Moses, and if with all this, 
as a matter of fact, they had no real 
regard for his teachings, how could 
they be expected to believe in Jesus, 
for "whom they did not even pretend 
auy regard? The expression Ids writ- 
ings, is here substituted for Moses in 
the preceding verses, and shows that his 
name is employed for the Scripture 
written by him. My words refer to the 
declarations made by Jesus as to his 
character and mission. The blindness 
and unbelief which characterized their 
relation to the Mosaic law, would pre- 
vent their seeing in Jesus the true 
Messiah. 

CHAPTER VI. 
After the discourse recorded in the 
preceding chapter, Jesus returned to 
Galilee, where he fulfilled the duties of 
his ministry, until at the approach of 
the third passover (see v. 4), John again 
resumes his narrative with the account 
of the feeding of the five thousand, and 
the discourse with the Jews to which 
that miracle gave . rise. Indeed this 
miracle seems to have been related by 
John, in order to introduce the testi- 
mony which Jesus bore at that time to 
his divine character and mission. Al- 
ford remarks that " in the last discourse 
Jesus was the Son of God, testified to 
by the Father, received by faith, reject- 
ed by unbelief; here he is Son of man, 
the incarnate life of the world, and we 
have the unbelief of the Jews and of 
his own disciples, set in strong contrast 
with the feeding on and participating 
in him as the Bread of Life." 

1-14. Jesus retires with his dis- 



CHAPTER VI. 

AFTER a these things Jesus 
went over the sea of Galilee, 
which is the sea of Tiberias. 



CIPLES ACROSS THE LAKE. FlVE THOU- 
SAND are fed. N~. E. coast of the Lake 
of Galilee. See Ns. on Matt. 14 : 13-21 ; 
Mark G : 32-44 ; Luke 9 : 10-17. It 
may be asked why John, after passing 
over in silence so many miracles per- 
formed by our Lord in Galilee, narrates 
the two which are found recorded in 
this chapter. The reply to this has 
been in a measure anticipated, in the 
brief remarks with which I have pre- 
faced the chapter. These miracles 
served to introduce the great discourse 
which Jesus delivered at Capernaum, in 
which he sets forth his flesh and blood 
as the true spiritual food of the believ- 
er. The miracle of his walking upon 
the water constituted so essential a 
part of the general narrative, that the 
Evangelist could not well omit its inser- 
tion. This will appear by a reference 
to vs. 22, 24, 25, where it would be diffi- 
cult to account for the fact that the 
people found Jesus on the other side of 
the sea, when the evening previous they 
had seen his disciples depart in a ship 
without him, unless the subject had 
been cleared up by what is related in 
vs. 15-21. Alford however rejects this 
reason for the recording of the miracle, 
and finds it to be this : to give to the 
Twelve, in the prospect of so apparently 
a strange discourse respecting his body, 
a view of the truth respecting that body, 
that it and the things said of it were 
not to be understood in a gross, corpo- 
real, but in a supernatural and spiritual 
sense. But this is a very dangerous 
view to take when looked upon in its 
legitimate consequences, for if our 
Lord's body was not truly and really as 
gross and material as our own, how can 
we avoid the dogma of the Doceta% that 
it was only a bodily appearance and not 
a real body, which our Lord took upon 
himself while on earth ? 

1. After these things. This as has 
been remarked (see N. on 5 : 1) is a 
general term of transition, giving us no 



116 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



2 And a great multitude fol- 
lowed him, because they saw his 
miracles which he did on them 
that were diseased. 

3 And Jesus went up into a 

fixed date. An interval of nearly a 
year had intervened between the events 
here l^ecorded and those of the preced- 
ing chapter. These things refer how- 
ever of course to the healing of the in- 
firm man at Bethesda, and the events 
and discourse consequent thereon. Went 
over to the north-east side near to 
Bethsaida. See Luke 9 : 10. The sea 
of Galilee. It is called in Luke 5 : 1 
(on which see Note), the lake of Genne- 
saret. The clause ichich is the sea of 
Tiberias (literally, of Tiberias), is added 
probably by John, because at the time 
he wrote his gospel, this sheet of water 
was more generally known to the peo- 
ple of other countries by this name. 
Tiberias, which is mentioned by John 
only, was quite a new city in the time 
of our Saviour, but had waxed to con- 
siderable size and importance in the 
time of Josephus. In the Jewish War 
which ended in the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, Tiberias was spared by Vespasian 
and Titus ; and its adherence to the 
Romans was rewarded by its being 
made the capital of the province (see 
Thomson's Land and Book, vol. ii. p. 72). 
This will account for the explanatory 
clause, here thrown in to identify the 
lake to the Gentile reader. See 21 : 1. 
Bengel strangely supposes, that the 
clause is added to show the part trav- 
ersed by our Lord. The reason why 
Jesus crossed the lake at this time, is 
given in N. on Matt. 14 : 13, which is 
parallel to this. 

2. A great multitude. The large num- 
bers who followed Jesus, are referred 
to in Matthew and Mark, but in a some- 
what different connection, as may be 
seen by a reference to the account 
given by these Evangelists. Thus we 
are continually meeting with evidence 
of the independence of the sacred wri- 
ters and the truthfulness of their state- 
ment. Because they saw, &c. This 
reason for their resorting to him in such 



mountain, and there he sat with 
his disciples. 

4 b And the passover, a feast of 
the Jews, was nigh. 

& Le. 23 : 5, T ; De. 16 : 1 ; ch. 2 : 13 ; & 5 : 1. 



great numbers, is peculiar to John. 
Followed him; literally, were following 
ox proceeded to follow him ; if the scene 
of the miracle was at the south-eastern 
extremity of the Butaiha — a plain on 
the north-eastern shore of the lake, re- 
sembling somewhat Gennesaret on the 
western shore-«-these people must have 
forded the Jordan at its entrance into 
the lake, on their way from Capernaum 
and other places on the extreme north- 
western shore. See N. on v. 17. Which 
he did on them, &c. The preposition em- 
ployed in the original, marks these dis- 
eased persons as the cause or occasion of 
the miracles here referred to, as though 
it had been said, ' which he took occa- 
sion from the sick persons to perform on 
them.' The idea is that there was resi- 
dent an inherent power in him to work 
miracles, which the presence of these sick 
people furnished opportunity for him to 
make manifest. 

3. He tvent up into a mountain ; liter- 
ally, the mountain, or eminence border- 
ing on the lake. On the south-eastern 
part of the Butaiha, Thomson says 
that there is a bold headland, which he 
regards as the scene of the miracle here 
related. Its marks of identification are 
these : It belongs to Bethsaida ; it is a 
desert place, and near the shore of the 
lake (see Matt. 14 : 19) ; a mountain is 
close at hand, and there is the smooth 
grassy spot upon which the people 
might be seated as here described. 
The mountain, as above remarked, on 
the extreme south-east corner of this 
Butaiha shuts down upon the lake bleak 
and barren. Here is a little cove in 
which the ships or boats were anchored. 
See Thomson's Land and Book, vol. ii. 
p. 29. The reference to this mountain 
or headland is peculiar to John. Sat 
with his disciples. See N. on Matt. 
5 : 1. 

4. This verse is valuable, inasmuch 
as it fixes the time when this great 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



117 



5 c When Jesus then lifted up 
his eyes, and saw a great com- 

c Mat. 14 : 14 ; Ma. G : 35 ; Lu. 9 : 12. 

miracle was performed and the subse- 
quent discourse at Capernaum pro- 
nounced. It seems pretty clear from 
this passage, compared with 7 : 1 (on 
which see Xotc), that our Lord did not 
go up to Jerusalem on the occasion of 
this passover, probably on account of 
the deadly hostility of the Jews ; and 
perhaps, as "Webster and "Wilkinson 
suggest, on account of the great ex- 
citement, which this miracle of the feed- 
ing of the five thousand produced 
among the people. It seems from this 
time that he retired to the more un- 
frequented parts of the country (see 
Matt. 15 : 21 ; 1G : 13 ; Mark 7 : 24 ; 8 : 
27 ; Luke 9 : 18) ; but this may have 
resulted in part from the jealousy of 
Herod, who from the time of his put- 
ting John the Baptist to death, seems 
to have looked with an evil eye upon 
the rising fame of Jesus. See Xs. on 
Matt. 14 : 1 ; 15 : 21. A feast ; liter- 
ally, which (was a) feast. This explana- 
tory adjunct shows that John wrote his 
gospel for Gentile readers. The verse 
is parenthetic. 

5. Then or therefore. If v. 4 is par- 
enthetic, this connection refers back to 
v. 3, in which Jesus is said to have 
taken his position as a public teacher, 
upon an elevation bordering on the 
lake. This would naturally attract to 
him great crowds. Lifted up his eyes. 
A form of expression of frequent occur- 
rence in the Bible, and here signifying 
that his attention was directed to the 
great numbers which from all quarters 
were gathering around him. A great 
company. Bengel and Alford refer this 
to the people, who were gathering on 
their way to keep the passover at Jeru- 
salem. But see K on Matt. 14 : 14. 
I am the more confirmed in the objec- 
tion there made to Alford's view, by a 
recent conversation with Prof. Howard 
Crosby, who from a careful personal 
survey of the whole region around the 
Lake of Tiberias, assures me that the 
usual route to Jerusalem from Caper- 



pany come unto him, he saith 
unto Philip, Whence shall we 
buy bread, that these may eat ? 

naum, Bethsaida, and the adjacent 
towns must have been dow T n the west- 
ern shore of the lake to a ford of the 
Jordan some ten miles below its outlet, 
where the traveller crossed over and 
proceeded onward, until opposite to 
Jericho he again recrossed the river, 
and pursued the usual route from 
Jericho to Jerusalem. Come unto him. 
The original is in the present tense as it 
appeared to the eye of Jesus. The 
literal rendering is, having seen that a 
great company is coming to him, or 
keeps corning to him. The gradual 
increase of numbers is explained by 
the parallel passage in Mark, many 
knew him and ran afoot thither out 
of all the cities. The hour of the day, 
when they reached the place where 
Jesus was, would of course vary with 
the distance of the cities and towns. 
Some doubtless did not arrive until the 
day was far on its decline, and this gave 
occasion to the disciples (see the account 
as narrated by the other Evangelists) to 
suggest to Jesus, that he should send 
the multitude away, to obtain food for 
themselves from the adjacent villages. 
He saith unto Philip. In the other 
Evangelists, the conversation is said to 
have been begun by the disciples, who 
requested him to send the multitude 
away to obtain food ; whereas in John, 
our Lord commences the subject by the 
inquiry made of Philip, as here related. 
Alford calls this a disagreement, so far 
as the mere letter is concerned. But it 
is nothing more than one of the varia- 
tions of detail and incident, always found 
to a greater or less extent in truthful 
and independent writers. Webster and 
Wilkinson thus harmonize the state- 
ments : Disciples. ' Send the multitude 
away,' &c. Jesus. ' They need not de- 
part ; give ye them to eat.' (Matt. 14 : 
15, 16; Luke 9 : 12.) Disciples. 'Shall 
we go and buy two hundred penny- 
worth of bread, and give them to eat?' 
(Mark 6 : 37.) Jesus (to Philip).' Whence 
shall we buy bread that these may eat ?' 



118 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



6 And this he said to prove 
hini : for he himself knew what 
he would do. 

7 Philip answered him, d Two 
hundred pennyworth of bread is 
not sufficient for them, that 
every one of them may take a 
little. 

: ' 8 One of his disciples, Andrew, 
Simon Peter's brother, saith unto 
him, 

Philip. ' Two hundred pennyworth of 
bread is not sufficient for them, that 
every one of them may take a little.' 
Jesus. ' How many loaves have ye ? go 
and see.' (Mark 6 : 38.) Andrew. 
'There is a lad here,' &c. This re- 
moves every difficulty from the apparent 
verbal variance in the accounts, al- 
though I think that the question put 
into the mouth of the disciples in Mark 
6 : 3*7, was the one here attributed to 
Philip, who acted as spokesman. See 
Ns. on Matt. 14 : 16 ; Mark 6 : 37. 
All the Evangelists concur in the state- 
ment, that Jesus first proposed to the 
disciples to provide food. Bengel thinks 
that our Lord addressed Philip as here 
related, because to him had been as- 
signed the duty of attending to their 
provisionary matters. But see v. G. 
Whence, i. e. from what store or mar- 
ket ? It being a desert place, the ques- 
tion might well stagger Philip, who 
looked only to the usual mode of ob- 
taining a supply of provisions. 

G. This verse, which is a parenthesis, 
places beyond a doubt that our Lord's 
question was proposed to Philip as a 
trial of his faith. See N. on Matt. 
1-1 : 16. To prove; litei'ally, proving, 
or in the way of testing. The words 
he himself knew what he would do, 
undoubtedly refer to the divine omnis- 
cience of Jesus, by which the future 
was as the present, and no contingency 
could arise, in which he should be 
doubtful as to the proper course to 
pursue. See 2 : 25 ; 6 : 64; 13 : 3, 11 ; 
18 : 4; 19 : 28, where omniscience 
is attributed to him in language which 
cannot be mistaken. 



9 There is a lad here, which 
hath five barley loaves, and two 
small fishes : e but what are they 
among so many ? 

10 And Jesus said, Make the 
men sit down. Now there was 
much grass in the place. So the 
men sat down, in number about 
five thousand. 

d See Nu. 11 : 21. 22. 
e 2 Ki. 4 : 43. ' 



7-9. Two hundred pennyworth. A 
sum variously estimated from $28 to 
$30. A little. The original is indefinite, 
some little (portion). Philip's answer 
shows his want of faith in the source of 
supply guaranteed by the presence of 
Jesus. The same is true of Andrew, 
who appears on this, as on other occa- 
sions, in close connection with Philip. 
Willing to impart all the information 
he possessed in order to meet the exi- 
gency, he informs his Master, that 
there was a lad present, who had five 
barley loaves and two small fishes, but 
showed his sense of the insufficiency of 
this small quantity of food, by immedi- 
ately adding, what are they among so 
many (literally, for so many) ? We see 
from all this, that the miraculous sup- 
ply of food was anticipated by no one 
of the company, and hence was the 
more astounding when it took place. A 
lad; literally, one little boy. Webster 
and Wilkinson think that to him the 
disciples had intrusted the care of their 
stock of provisions. But see N. on 
Matt. 14 : 17. John is the only writer 
who mentions the circumstance that 
these were barley-loaves. This shows 
how plain was the fare thus miraculous- 
ly supplied. See N. on Matt. 14 : 18. 
Small fishes. This word in the original 
literally means something boiled, i. e. 
meat, flesh, eaten with bread ; hence 
any sauce or condiment eaten with 
bread to give it a relish or flavor. Pish 
was the chief dainty of the Athenians, 
and thus the word came gradually to 
be used for a sauce or relish. Some 
here translate two fishes, but the best 
Greek Lexicons put down the word as 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



119 



11 And Jesus took the loaves; 
and when he had given thanks, 
he distributed to the disciples, 
and the disciples to them that 
were set down ; and likewise of 
the fishes as much as they would. 

12 When they were filled, he 
said unto his disciples, Gather up 
the fragments that remain, that 
nothing be lost. 

13 Therefore they gathered 

a diminutive. But what are then, &c. 
The order of the words in the original 
is much more emphatic : But these — 
ivhat are they for so many? 

10. Make the men, &c. The word 
rendered men, is the one which is used 
generically for people, folks, and here 
includes also the women and children. 
In the clause so the men, sat down, the 
Greek word is used signifying men, in 
opposition to women and children; 
men of adult years. This harmonizes 
John's statement with that of Matt. 
14 : 21, on which see Note. As the 
men seem only to have been numbered, 
it is thought that they alone sat in 
ranks, the rest of the company taking 
a position less prominent and orderly. 
l\ow (literally but) there icas much grass. 
This serves to explain why Jesus direct- 
ed the people to sit down. It also 
anticipates an objection, which might 
arise from the apparent inconvenience 
of obeying the command to sit upon 
the ground. The clause is peculiar to 
John (see 1ST. on Matt. 14: 19), although 
Mark (v. 89) speaks of the green grass, 
on which the people were caused to sit. 
Thomson speaks of the beautiful sward 
at the base of the rocky hill, as one of 
the signs of identification, that the 
south-eastern portion of the Butaiha was 
the place where this miracle was 
wrought (Land and Book, vol. ii. p. 29). 
Took the. loaves. In all the other 
Evangelists, the five loaves. John refers 
however to the number in v. 13. Bad 
given thanks (see N. on v. 23). In the 
other Evangelists, the word signifying 
to bless, to ask God's blessing (on food), 



them together, and filled twelve 
"baskets with the fragments of 
the five barley loaves, which re- 
mained over and above unto them 
that had eaten. 

14 Then those men, when they 
had seen the miracle that Jesus 
did, said, This is of a truth f that 
Prophet that should come into 
the world. 

/ Ge. 49 : 10 ; De. IS : 15, IS ; Mat. 11 : 3 ; ch. 1 : 
21 : & 4 : 19, 25 : & 7 : 40. 



is employed. Both ideas were doubt- 
less made prominent in this act of 
devotion. He distributed, &c. At this 
point the creative power was no doubt 
exerted. See N. on Matt. 14 : 19. 
Bikcwise of the fishes, i. e. these were 
distributed in like manner as the loaves. 
The original is not the usual construc- 
tion for of the fishes, but a prepositional 
clause denoting, out of 'or from the fishes 
as the source of the supply. As much 
as they woidd, i. e. until their wants 
were fully supplied. This refers gram- 
matically to the fishes, but in sense also 
to the loaves. "When it is remembered 
that this great multitude were in a state 
of extreme hunger, it will be seen that 
no ordinary supply would have sufficed 
for their wants. This idea of satiety is 
expressed in the other Evangelists by 
the words, " they did all eat and were 
filled." 

12, 13. When they were filled interprets 
the full sense of as much as they would, 
in the preceding verse. Gather up the 
fragments, &c. This command and the 
reason for it is recorded only by John. 
A beautiful and impressive truth of 
economy is taught, which persons of 
prodigal and wasteful habits will do 
well to ponder upon. Even food mi- 
raculously supplied at a word, was not 
to be wasted, but all gathered up and 
reserved for future use. See N. on 
Matt. 14 : 20, 21, for general remarks 
on this evidence of the completeness of 
the miracle, and the kind of baskets 
here referred to. Of five barley loaves. 
The same prepositional construction is 
here employed as in v. 11 (on which 



120 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



15 When Jesus therefore per- 
ceived that they would come and 
take him by force, to make him 
a king, he departed again into a 
mountain himself alone. 

16 9 And when even was now 

flfMat. 14: 23; Ma. 6:47. 



see Note), denoting out of or from. 
These fragments far exceeded in bulk 
and quantity the original loaves, and 
hence the simple construction of would 
not have so accurately expressed this 
as out of or from. The relative in 
which remained, refers to the word 
fragments. 

14. This miracle was so palpable and 
stupendous, that the people {those men, 
the generic word being employed. See 
N. on v. 10) at once professed their 
faith in him as the Prophet (see Deut. 
18 : 18-20), or Messiah who was to 
come into the world. That their faith 
however was superficial and evanescent 
appears, not only from their mistaken 
notions of the object of his mission 
implied in their attempt to make him 
their king (v. 15), but in their rejection 
of him at Capernaum, where on the 
following day, he discoursed upon the 
spiritual food, which he was to furnish 
in his own flesh and blood. Tliat should 
come. The Coming One. See N. on 
Matt. 11 : 3. 

15. The people were raised to such a 
pitch of excitement by this stupendous 
miracle, that they demand him to be 
their king. Who would be so able to 
lead them against their Roman oppres- 
sors, as one who at a word could 
supply thousands with food? Under 
such a leader they could not fail of 
success. The passover was at hand. 
Thousands of bold hearts, panting for 
the deliverance of their country, would 
soon throng the streets of Jerusalem. 
Now was the time to strike a blow for 
liberty. Under this strong feeling that 
the long expected time of their deliver- 
ance had come, so importunate were 
they, that they would even force Jesus 
to become their king and leader. This 
indicates the previous employment of 
urgent request and entreaty to induce 



come, his disciples went down 
unto the sea, 

17 And entered into a ship, and 
went over the sea toward Caper- 
naum. And it was now dark, 
and Jesus was not come to them. 



him to be their king, all of which had 
been fruitless. His kingdom was not 
of this world, and hence he did not 
yield to their request ; and when they 
would take him by force and compel his 
assent to be their king, he withdrew 
again into the mountain, whence he 
had previously addressed them (v. 3). 
This time he retired alone to the 
mountain, as Matthew and Mark say, to 
pray. The reason for this is given in 
N. on Matt. 14 : 23. The verb take him 
by force, literally signifies carry him off 
by force, and shows that it was doubt- 
less the intention of these Jews to take 
Jesus with them to Jerusalem, and there 
publicly proclaim him king, a fact 
which, Tholuck says, makes it clear 
why Jesus frequently prohibited per- 
sons from noising abroad his miracles. 

16-21. Jesus walks upon the wa- 
ter. Lake of Galilee. See Ns. on 
Matt. 14 : 22-33 ; Mark 6 : 45-51. 

16,17. When the even, &c. This was 
the second or real evening which began 
at sunset. The first evening, as it was 
called, commenced as some say, at 
three o'clock ; as others say, just before 
sunset. See Ns. on Matt. 14 : 15, 23. 
Went down, as one would go to the 
shore or beach of a lake. Entered into 
a (literally the) ship. Matthew and 
Mark say that Jesus constrained his 
disciples to do this, that is, he used a 
sort of friendly compulsion. Went 
over the sea toward Capernaum. Since 
I published my commentary on Mat- 
thew and Mark, in which I fell in with . 
the common, and as I supposed univer- 
sally entertained theory of two Beth- 
saidas, Dr. Thomson has given the 
world his '•'•Land and Book" in which 
he shows most clearly, that there was 
but one Bethsaida, situated at the en- 
trance of the Jordan into the lake. 
But how is this reconcilable with what 



A. D. 31.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



121 



is said in Mark (6 : 45), about going 
" to the other side before unto Beth- 
saida ? " The question is so pertinent, 
and the answer of such importance to 
the right understanding of the location 
of these places, that I shall take the 
liberty to quote Dr. Thomson in full, 
whose familiarity with these and other 
sacred places, by a residence of twenty- 
five years in the country, entitle his 
opinion to the highest credit. "Accord- 
ing to John, the disciples went over 
the sea toward Capernaum, while Mark 
says that Jesus constrained them to get 
into the ship, and go to the other side 
before unto Bethsaida. Looking back 
from the point at the south-eastern 
extremity of the Butaiha, I see no 
difficulty in these statements. The 
case was this I suppose : As the even- 
ing was coming on, Jesus commanded 
the disciples to return home to Caper- 
naum, while he sent the people away. 
They were reluctant to go and leave 
him alone in that desert place ; proba- 
bly remonstrated against his exposing 
himself to the coming storm and the 
cold night air, and reminded him that 
he would have many miles to walk 
round the head of the lake, and must 
cross the Jordan at Bethsaida before 
he could reach home. To quiet their 
minds, he may have then told them to 
go on before toward Bethsaida, while 
he dismissed the crowd, promising to 
join them in the night, which he in- 
tended to do, and actually did, though 
in a manner very different from what 
they actually expected. Still they were 
reluctant to leave him, and had to be 
constrained to set sail. In this state of 
anxiety, they endeavored to keep near 
the shore between this and Bethsaida, 
hoping, no doubt, to take in their 
beloved Master at some point along the 
coast. But a violent wind beat off the 
boat, so that they were not able to 
make Bethsaida, nor even Capernaum, 
but were driven past both ; and when 
near the plain of Genncsaret, at the 
north-west corner of the lake, Jesus 
came to them walking upon the sea. 
All this is topographically natural, and 
easily to be understood, on the suppo- 
sition that the miracle took place on 
Vol. III. — 6 



this spot [i. e. the south-east corner of 
the Butaiha] ; that Bethsaida was at 
the mouth of the Jordan, and Caper- 
naum at Tell Hum [ i. e. on the 
northern shore of the lake a few miles 
south-west of the entrance of the Jor- 
dan]. ]STor is there need even of the 
marginal rendering in our Bible : ' Over 
against Bethsaida.' The disciples 
would naturally sail toward Bethsaida 
in order to reach Tell Hum [i. e. Ca- 
pernaum]. Neither is there anything 
inconsistent with the statement of John, 
that the people took ship the next day 
and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 
They came from the south-east, where 
the miracle had been wrought, and 
would naturally seek him in Capernaum, 
for that was his home, but it seems 
that they did not find him there, for 
John immediately adds, that when they 
had found him on the other side of the 
sea — a very singular mode of expression 
if they found him in Capernaum itself, 
but perfectly natural on the supposition 
that they had to go on to the plain of 
Gennesaret, where he had landed. 
They would probably find him some- 
where about 'Ain et Tiny, near which, 
I presume, the party reached the shore 
from their wonderful sail. But if it 
should appear to any one more proba- 
ble, that the people actually found 
Jesus in Capernaum, this might easily 
be, for Capernaum was not more than 
an hour's walk from the corner of 
Gennesaret [i. e. 'Ain et Tiny], and he 
could easily have returned home, for 
they reached the shore very early in 
the morning." Land and Book, vol. 
ii. p". 30. 

The importance of the subject here 
discussed, and the desirableness of 
reaching the exact truth, if possible, in 
regard to the question whether there 
were two Bethsaidas or only one, and if 
so where it was situated, is my apology 
for so long an extract from Dr. Thom- 
son's excellent book. It was now dark ; 
literally, it had noio become dark. So 
was not come, is literally had not come. 
The pluperfect is employed here to 
denote the fact, that night had actually 
overtaken them, and Jesus had not yet 
joined them as they had expected. 



122 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



18 And the sea arose by reason 
of a great wind that blew. 

19 So when they had rowed 
about five and twenty or thirty 
furlongs, they see Jesus walking 
on the sea, and drawing nigh 
unto the ship : and they were 
afraid. 

20 But he saith unto them, It 
is I ; be not afraid. 

21 Then they willingly received 
him into the ship : and immedi- 



The implication is also, that they had 
now given up all expectation of his 
coming on board that night. This 
sense of disappointment was followed 
almost immediately by the adverse 
tempest spoken of in the following 
verse. 

18, 19. TJie sea arose, i. e. was begin- 
ning to run high. By reason of a great 
wind, &c. See Ns. on Matt. 8 : 24 ; 
14 : 24; Luke 8 : 23. Five and twenty 
or thirty furlongs. As they had been 
rowing until the fourth watch, or about 
3 o'clock in the morning, and yet had 
made only three or four miles, it shows 
how strong and contrary was the wind, 
and also how far Jesus walked upon 
the water, before he reached the ship 
in which were his disciples. Walking 
on the sea. The preposition employed 
here in the original, denotes the steady 
resting upon or continuance of our 
Lord upon the water, and is opposed 
to the idea that he appeared to walk on 
the wave, while in fact he did not ac- 
tually rest upon it or touch it. Drawing 
nigh unto the ship. We learn from 
Mark, that while his direction was to- 
ward them, it yet seemed to be his 
intention to pass them. They were 
afraid. See Ns. on Matt. 14 : 26 ; 
Mark 6 : 49. 

20. See Ns. on Matt. 14 : 27 ; Mark 
6 : 50. 

21. Tlien they willingly, &c. See N. 
on Matt. 14 : 32, where these words are 
explained. Immediately is taken by 
some expositors in a comparative sense, 
soon, almost immediately. Others, as 



ately the ship was at the land 
whither they went. 

22 i The day following, when 
the people, which stood on the 
other side of the sea, saw that 
there was none other boat there, 
save that one whereinto his dis- 
ciples were entered, and that Je- 
sus went not with his disciples 
into the boat, but that his disci- 
ples were gone away alone ; 



Bengel, regard it as a literal verity, and 
find here in the instantaneous reaching 
of the desired port, a new miracle. The 
former I take to be the true and most 
natural sense. The disciples had passed 
almost the whole night, in a fruitless at- 
tempt to reach the place to which they 
were bound. The winds and waves were 
against them. But as soon as Jesus was 
received on board, the elements were no 
longer adverse; and their boat glided so 
rapidly over the peaceful surface of the 
lake, that they found themselves almost 
immediately at the place whither they 
were wishing to go. Thus when Jesus 
accompanies us in any duty we have to 
perform, it becomes easy, delightful, 
and successful ; but when he is absent, 
all is dark, cheerless, and adverse. At 
the land ; literally upon the land, refer- 
ence being had to the ascending beach 
upon which the ship was drawn up. 
Whither they went or were bound. 

22-71. Our Lord's discourse at 
Capernaum in which he declares 
himself to be the bread of life. 
Capernaum. 

22. The day following the one on which 
the five thousand were fed. Tlie people 
which stood, &c. Some of the people 
had doubtless returned to their homes 
according to the direction of Jesus (see 
Matt. 14^ 23 ; Mark 6 : 46) ; otherwise 
all the boats on the lake would have 
scarcely sufficed to have conveyed them 
at one time to Capernaum (v. 24). 
Some, however, seeing that he had not 
departed in the boat with his disciples, 
and supposing that he would spend the 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



123 



23 Howbeit there came other 
boats from Tiberias nigh unto 
the place where they did eat 
bread, after that the Lord had 
given thanks : 

24 When the people therefore 
saw that Jesus was not there, 



night somewhere in the immediate vi- 
cinity, remained at or near the place 
Avhere the miracle had been performed, 
with the expectation of seeing him 
again on the following morning. They 
were the more confirmed in this, be- 
cause no other boat was there, by 
which Jesus could have been conveyed 
across the lake. When they saw ; liter- 
ally, having seen, which is repeated on 
account of the intervening parenthesis, 
by the verb saio in v. 24. The principal 
verb in the original is, took shipping or 
went on board the ships (v. 2-1). 

23. This verse is parenthetic, being 
designed to show how it was that when 
the disciples embarked in the only boat 
which lay in the cove the preceding 
evening, there were other boats there 
in the morning, on board of which the 
people embarked to return to Caper- 
naum. These boats had come from 
Tiberias, after the departure of the 
disciples. They were employed for 
ferriage ; or perhaps, as Alford suggests, 
this might have been a landing place 
for merchandise. Nigh unto the place 
in some convenient cove or harbor. 
After the Lord had given thanks. The 
particularity with which it is here no- 
ticed, shows the important connection 
of this act of devotion with the great 
miracle which followed. In like man- 
ner, our Lord at the grave of Lazarus 
gave thanks, before he uttered the 
authoritative summons which called the 
dead to life. In neither instance, did 
he pray for power to work the great 
miracle which followed, but in sublime 
and simple utterance proffered his 
thanks, as though such power in an- 
swer to prayer had been already 
bestowed upon him. See N. on 11 : 41, 
42. 

24. When the people therefore, &c. 



neither his disciples, they also 
took shipping and came to Ca- 
pernaum, seeking for Jesus. 

25 And when they had found 
him on the other side of the sea, 
they said unto him, Rabbi, when 
earnest thou hither ? 



The thread of narration which was 
interrupted by the explanatory paren- 
thesis in v. 23, is here resumed. In 
the morning the people looked in vain 
for the appearance of Jesus, whom they 
had supposed was yet on that side of 
the lake, but now thinking that very 
early in the morning, if not during the 
night, he had gone by land round the 
head of the lake to join his disciples, 
they also (as well as Jesus' disciples) 
took shipping (see K. on v. 22), as a 
more convenient and speedy way of 
reaching Capernaum. Shipping, i. e. 
the boats referred to in v. 23. Seeking 
for Jesus denotes the object or purpose 
of their hasty return to Capernaum. 
Neitlier his disciples. Why should they 
have expected to see his disciples, 
whom they knew to have embarked the 
preceding evening in a ship for Caper- 
naum ? Perhaps they thought that the 
violent and adverse gale might have 
compelled them to put back to the place 
whence they had starred ; or the clause 
may have been inserted to give empha- 
sis to the fact, that Jesus and his 
followers had all left the place. 

25. On the other side of the sea in 
reference, as expositors have hitherto 
thought, to the north-eastern side 
where they had spent the preceding 
day, and witnesssd the great miracle 
of the feeding of the five thousand. 
But if Dr. Thomson's conjecture is the 
right one (see K. on v. 17), their sur- 
prize was the result of not finding him 
at Capernaum, but still farther south 
at 'Ain et Tiny, the northern extremity 
of the plain "of Gennesaret, whither 
the boat had been driven by the 
adverse wind. The only difficulty 
which I find :n the way of this solution, 
is the improbability that when these 
men found n-jither Jesus nor his disci- 



124 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



26 Jesus answered them and 
said, Verily, verily, I say unto 
you, Ye seek me, not because ye 
saw the miracles, but because ye 



pies at Capernaum, they should so 
immediately have proceeded southward 
along the lake coast to search for him. 
It seems therefore to me the more 
probable supposition — and one which 
Dr. Thomson has admitted as an alter- 
native to his conjecture that the peo- 
ple proceeded to 'Ain et Tiny — that 
Jesus and his disciples, if they had 
been driven past Capernaum in the 
gale and landed somewhere below, 
returned forthwith to Capernaum. If 
the people, who had just come over 
from the north-eastern shore and prob- 
ably reached Capernaum before Jesus 
and his disciples, at first wondered at 
their absence and afterward saw them 
enter the place from a southern direc- 
tion, they would have virtually found 
him on the other side of the sea, 
i. e. at a place further south, and 
more directly opposite the scene of the 
recent miracle than Capernaum was, 
which, as Dr. Thomson has abundantly 
shown, was at the upper end of the 
lake, and only an hour's walk or so 
from the entrance of the Jordan. 
Wlten has also the pregnant significa- 
tion of how. They supposed that Jesus 
came round the head of the lake on 
foot, and they did not see how he had 
already joined his disciples, in case he 
left the north-eastern shore that morn- 
ing. Their surprise would be still 
further increased, if, as Dr. Thomson 
thinks, the disciples Tvith Jesus were 
found further south at 'Ain et Tiny, 
and were seen coming to Capernaum 
from that quarter. 

26. Here commences the spiritual ap- 
plication of the great miracle, which 
had been wrought the day previous on 
the north-eastern shore of the lake. 
Jesus answered, &c. Our Lord did not 
reply to their question of vain curios- 
ity, as to how and when he had reached 
Capernaum or its vicinity, but referred 
directly to the low and unworthy mo- 



did eat of the loaves, and were 
filled. 

27 Labour not for the meat 
which perisheth, but h for that 

h Ver. 54; ch. 4:14. 

tives which actuated them in seeking 
him. Ye seek me, i. e. desire to be 
with me. Not because ye saw, &c. i. e. 
not from a high and holy purpose of 
gaining new faith in my divine mission 
by witnessing my miracles. The verb 
saw, is not to be taken here in the 
superficial sense of mere external vision, 
but of an appreciation and right under- 
standing of the significance of these 
miracles. This declaration evinced 
such a deep and searching knowledge 
of their inmost heart, that it was intro- 
duced by the emphatic verily, verily. 
The plural miracles, is employed in ref- 
erence to all the miracles which he had 
wrought in confirmation of his divine 
mission. The article in the original is 
wanting, and should not have been in- 
serted in our English version, the word 
being intentionally left indefinite, not 
because ye saw signs, i. e. miraculous 
proofs of my divine mission. But be- 
cause ye did cat, &c. i. e. because vou 
hoped to reap temporal advantages 
from my miraculous power. The eating 
of the loaves is not here to be taken in 
the narrow and restricted sense of a 
mere supply of their bodily wants, but 
is put generically for all the temporal 
blessings which they hoped to enjoy as 
the followers of a personage possessed 
of such miraculous powers. It con- 
stitutes also the point of contrast drawn 
by our Lord, between the meat that 
perisheth and that which endureth to 
everlasting life. Of the loaves ; lifcer- 
siiljyfrom the loaves. See N. on v. 11. 
27. Labor not, &c. No prohibition 
is here laid upon such labor and fore- 
thought, as are essential to the supply of 
our bodily wants ; but upon that ex- 
cessive and absorbing desire for world- 
ly good, which causes that which is 
spiritual, heavenly, and abiding, to be 
wholly lost sight of. Hence we need 
not with Kuhnol translate and ex- 
plain : labor not so much for ordinary 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



125 



meat which endureth unto ever- I shall give unto you : * for him 



lasting life, which the Son of man 



€ Mat. 3:17; &17:5; Ma. 1:11; &9:7; Lu. 

3:22; &9:35; ch. 1:33; &5:8T; &8:1S; Ac. 

2 : 22 ; 2 Pe. 1 : 17. 



food, as for heavenly. This would 
weaken the antithesis, and contrary to 
the usage of Jesus (see Matt. 6 : 19, 
31, 34), place earthly good in a scale 
of comparison with that which is 
heavenly ; as though any comparison 
whatever could be instituted be- 
tween that which is fleeting and trans- 
itory, and that which is eternal. 
The word rendered labor, literally 
signifies, to spend labor upon, to busy 
one's self about, here with the additional 
idea drawn from the context, of labor- 
ing with anxious solicitude and con- 
cern. These men who were hurrying 
after Jesus, were not at this time en- 
gaged in manual labor, but were in a 
state of anxious excitement, how to 
turn these wonderful works of Jesus to 
their personal advantage. Meat. Food. 
See N. on Matt. 10 : 10. Which per- 
isheth, i. e. whose nourishing quality is 
transient, and has no power to confer 
immortality. Afford likes the idea of 
the English translation, which perisheth, 
i. e. the xiseless part of it in being cast 
out — the useful in becoming part of the 
body which perisheth. So Stier : 
"the food of the body perisheth or 
passeth away — in the use of it in man 
himself, since the greatest part of it 
must again, as dead excrement, be re- 
jected. But for that meat. The hor- 
tatory imperative labor, must be here 
repeated in the sense, seek to obtain, 
by believing in Jesus and obeying his 
commands. Meat in the second clause, 
is to be taken metaphorically in the sense 
of spiritual food, the enjoyment of the 
divine favor, and all the blessings com- 
prised in it. The expression endureth 
to everlasting life, is antithetic to per- 
isheth in the preceding clause, and 
signifies that which preserves its nutri- 
tious power throughout man's endless 
being. The contrast is between the 
perishable nature of temporal good, 



hath God the Father sealed. 

28 Then said they unto him, 
What shall we do, that we might 
work the works of God ? 



and the imperishable spiritual blessings, 
of which, if the soul of man once par- 
takes, it will never hunger or thirst any 
more (see v. 36; Rev. 7 : 16). Which 
the Son of man, &c. This relative clause 
refers not, as some think, to the im- 
mediate antecedent life, but to meat, 
as is evident from the scope of the pas- 
sage, as well as from the subordinate 
grammatical relation of everlasting life 
to the true meat for which they were 
to labor. Shall give. That this refers 
to the giving of himself up to death, is 
evident from v. 51. The wondrous 
food here spoken of, was as much a 
gratuity on the part of Jesus, as the 
miraculous repast of the preceding day, 
in view of which they were now follow- 
ing him. It was not to be purchased 
by good works, or an outward and 
empty profession of fealty to him as a 
temporal king (see v. 15), but by a 
sincere and candid reception of him as 
a spiritual Deliverer, and faith in him 
as the true Messiah. For him hath 
God, &c. This clause is designed to 
furnish proof that Jesus had the power 
of bestowing the bread of everlasting 
life, which he claimed to possess. The 
verb hath sealed, has here the sense of 
has confirmed, established as the Mes- 
siah. The use of the figure is explain- 
ed in N. on 3 : 33. The miracles, doc- 
trines, and life of Jesus, were furnishing 
the most ample proof that he had been 
appointed and consecrated of God to 
the Messianic office. Hence the people 
were wholly inexcusable for the eager- 
ness with which they sought the meat 
that perished, to the total neglect of 
that which endured to evex-lasting life. 
The Father is correlative with the pre- 
ceding Son of man, which is thus shown 
to have the high sense of the Son of 
God. Jesus does not ignore his divine 
nature in the appellation Son of man, 
which his humility and condescension 



126 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



29 Jesus answered and said un- 
to them, k This is the work of God, 
that ye believe on him whom he 
hath sent. 

fclJo. 3:23. 



to our fallen race leads him so often to 
use. 

28. Tlien said they. It is evident on 
the face of what follows, that the audi- 
tors of Jesus were not those only who 
had crossed the lake (v. 24), but that 
the Jews of Capernaum, in greater or 
less numbers engaged in the discussion, 
which, as we see from v. 59, took place 
in the synagogue. Some of the dis- 
ciples of our Lord were also present 
(vs. 60-66), and also the Twelve (v. 67). 
What shall we do, &c. The people 
could not but see that Jesus had refer- 
ence to spiritual benefits, but having as 
yet no knowledge of the way of salva- 
tion through grace, proceed at once to 
inquire, what they shall do to secure 
this meat so enduring and imperishable. 
Some find in the question here pro- 
posed, a vein of mockery. 'How are 
we to do this ? This we leave to God.' 
But this would imply a knowledge of 
the impossibility of justification by 
works, to which we cannot suppose the 
Jews to have attained, and even if ad- 
mitted by them as a theory, certainly, 
not reduced to practice (Kom. 10 : 3). 
It is evident, therefore, that the ques- 
tion was seriously proposed, in order to 
draw from him some explanation of 
what he meant by the words, labor for 
the meat which endureth, &c. They evi- 
dently referred the direction to exter- 
nal works, the reward of which was to 
be the attainment of everlasting life. 
Now they wish to learn what these 
works are, by the performance of which 
they may secure the divine favor. This 
sense meets the full wants of the pas- 
sage, and does not compel us to put 
into the mouth of the people, at this 
early stage of the discussion, the lan- 
guage of opposition and mockery. 
The verb might work, is the very same 
employed by our Lord in v. 27, trans- 
lated labor, and shows that the people 



30 They said therefore unto 
him, l What sign shewest thou 
then, that we may see, and be- 
lieve thee ? what clost thou 
work ? 

ZMat. 12:38; & 16:1; Ma. 8:11; 1 Co. 1:22. 

had their eye on that direction of our 
Lord, when they proposed this question. 
By the works of God is not here meant, 
the works which God performs, but 
those enjoined by him upon men, such 
as the sacrifices, rites, ceremonies, and 
other requirements of the law. " Those 
which are right in God's sight." Prof. 
Crosby. 

29. Jesus now declares that the work 
of God enjoined upon them as the con- 
dition of salvation, is to believe on him 
whom the Father hath sent, that is, 
Jesus Christ, the very person who was 
then addressing them. This is the work 
of God (which you are to do) ; not as 
some strangely interpret, this is the 
work of God (and not yours), as though 
faith in Christ were the act of God and 
not man. Stier quotes Schleiermachcr 
as saying : "I do not know that there 
can be found even in the writings of 
the apostles, a passage which more 
plainly and expressly teaches us, that 
the whole imperishable life of man's 
soul proceeds from faith in Christ, and 
that nothing but this faith lies at its 
foundation; a faith from which pro- 
ceeds every other good thing accept- 
able to God." This great doctrine of 
justification by faith, here so explicitly 
taught by the Lord Jesus himself, is 
more fully expanded and explained by 
Paul in his Epistle to the Romans. 
Faith is here called a work, because it 
is the act of receiving and resting upon 
Christ alone for salvation, as he is 
offered to us in the Gospel (see Assem- 
bly's Shorter Catechism). 

30. Their deep seated and obstinate 
unbelief now developes itself. They 
require a sign that Jesus is what he 
professes himself to be.. Probably they 
asked for a sign from heaven, some re- 
markable manifestation from the skies, 
like the sign-seekers in Matt. 12 : 38 ; 
10:1. There were doubtless those 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



127 



31 m Our fathers did eat manna 
in the desert ; as it is written, 

m Ex. 16: 15; No. 11 : 7; Xe. 9 : 15; 1 Co. 10: 3. 



present, who had never witnessed a 
miraculous display of his power. But 
there were many in the synagogue, who 
had seen and could testify to the great 
miracle which had been wrought the 
preceding day. Even these, in the 
hardness and blindness of their hearts, 
may have united in a clamorous demand 
for some new and more imposing 
miracle, which should put an end to all 
doubt respecting his claims to the Mes- 
siahship. There is no necessity of sup- 
posing that these were the sentiments 
of all who were present on this occa- 
sion. Some were already true believers 
in him. But the connection justifies 
us in attributing these words to the 
leading persons, if not the majority of 
those present. The pronoun thou, is in 
the original emphatic, and looks for- 
ward to the disparaging contrast, which 
they draw between the miracle he had 
wrought, and the more wonderful supply 
of bread furnished miraculously by Moses 
to their fathers in the wilderness. TJiat 
tee may see (the sign) and believe, i. e. 
that we by seeing this sign may believe. 
It is implied here that his previous 
works had been insufficient to produce 
conviction of the justice of his claims. 
These sign-seekers intimate that they are 
not prepared to decide against him ; but 
before they can admit his pretensions 
they must have higher evidence that 
he is what he professes himself to be. 
In their blindness and hardness of heart, 
they speak as though no miracle had 
yet been performed by him worthy of 
mention. ' Wliat sign showest thou ? 
What dost thou work? One who claims 
to be our Messiah, must advance satis- 
factory evidence that he is what he pro- 
fesses to be, and no such evidence has 
yet been offered by thee.' Thus they 
wholly ignore, not only the miracle of 
the loaves and fishes, but his other 
wonderful works of which they must all 
have heard, and many of them seen. 
Their implied pledge of discipleship, in 
case he gave them a sign of his divine 
mission, was worthless and hypocritical. 



71 He gave them bread from heaven 
to eat. 



n Ps. 78 : 24, 25. 



Their whole conduct on this occasion 
evinced, that no sign terrestrial or 
celestial would have sufficed to remove 
their hardness of heart and unbelief in 
the Son of God. What dost thou work ? 
They intimate that as yet he had done 
nothing remarkable, which would war- 
rant the assumption of such high claims 
as he had put forth. There is in the 
brevity of the original {what workest ?\ 
that which is strongly indicative of the 
| sneering tone of this question. Bengel 
I finds here a retort, that whereas he had 
enjoined upon them a work of God 
(v. 20), they now in turn demand of 
him a work, which shall be the sign of 
his warrant for thus addressing them. 
It is clearly evident that they had taken 
offence at his demand upon their faith 
j in him, as the only acceptable work of 
' God which they could perform. 

31. The design of this reference to 
the manna with which the people were 
supplied in the wilderness, was to show 
that it was a miracle far more tran- 
scendent than any which he had yet 
wrought. The marvellous supply of 
manna was indeed a sign from heaven 
(see X. on v. 29), and unless he sup- 
ported his claim by an equal if not 
greater miracle, he could not challenge 
their belief in his Messiahship. Refer- 
ence is probably had to the miracle 
which he had wrought the day previous, 
and which in the implied contrast here 
carried on, they aver to have been far 
inferior to that wrought in the wilder- 
ness by Moses, since that was indeed 
bread from heaven. In immediate view 
of this miraculous supply of their wants, 
they were willing to make him their 
king, but when required to believe in 
him as their spiritual Deliverer, they 
I depreciate his miracle and renounce 
: his claim upon their confidence as one 
J sent of God. Our fathers did eat mart' 
na (literally, the manna) in the wilder- 
: ness (for the space of forty years) ; ' you 
1 only supplied by a single meal the 
wants of a few thousand. The bread 
also upon which they fed was from 



128 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



32 Then Jesus said unto them, 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
Moses gave you not that bread 
from heaven ; but my Father 



heaven (Ps. 78 : 24. See also Exod. 16 : 
15); but this bread furnished by you 
was only of a common kind, and dis- 
tributed as upon ordinary occasions. 
Your miracle therefore falls far below 
that of Moses, and we are justified in 
demanding of you a greater and more 
satisfactory sign.' Such is the evident 
scope and intent of this verse, which 
at first sight seems to be wholly discon- 
nected from the preceding context, but 
which furnishes the reason for the cap- 
tious demand made in the preceding 
verse for some more notable miracle. 
The subject of the verb gave, is wanting 
in the original, but a reference to Ps. 
78 : 24, will show that God, and not 
Moses, is to be supplied. As the latter 
was the agent through whom the mira- 
cle of the wilderness was wrought, Jesus 
however in the next verse refers to 
Moses, in order to make the contrast 
more palpable between himself and that 
great lawgiver and prophet. 

32. Our Lord replies by correcting 
two errors in their statement. It was 
not Moses (as their words implied it to 
be), who gave them bread in the wil- 
derness ; nor was the manna thus given, 
the true and essential bread from heav- 
en. It was God himself who was the 
giver (Exod. 16 : 4, 15), and the bread 
was of a perishable nature, and there- 
fore not the true bread " enduring unto 
everlasting life." Some expositors do 
not include Moses in the negative, and 
give the sentence this turn: "that 
which Moses gave was not the true, 
real bread from heaven." The antithe- 
sis is so strong between Moses and my 
Father, that at first sight this would 
seem to be true. But our Lord's reply 
clearly shows that he understood the 
Jews to refer the pronoun in he gave, 
to Moses, contrary to its evident refer- 
ence to God, in Ps. 78 : 24, from 
which the words were quoted. Hence 
in thus naming Moses, he most cm- 



giveth you the true bread from 
heaven. 

33 For the bread of God is he 
which cometh down from heaven, 
and giveth life unto the world. 



phatically denied what their words 
implied, that it was Moses who had 
given them bread from heaven to eat. 
The words that bread (better the bread) 
from heaven, refer to the true bread, 
spoken of in the latter member of the 
sentence. But my Father giveth, &c. 
The Father gave the Son to be the Sa- 
viour of the world (3 : 16, 17), and he 
w r as the bread of life (see v. 35). Our 
Lord does not deny the miraculous na- 
ture of the manna given in the wilder- 
ness, but that it constituted, in any 
sense, the true spiritual bread of which 
it was the mere type. The tense of the 
verb gave, is literally has given, and the 
word you, is substituted for your fa- 
thers, in order to make the correspond- 
ence more complete w : ith giveth you, in 
the next clause. The manna, placed 
here in such strong and open contrast 
with the true bread from heaven, might 
be said also to comprise the whole Mo- 
saic law and ordinances, which had no 
pow r er to give life to the soul. 

33. This verse illustrates and con- 
firms the preceding sentiment. Olshau- 
sen would read and construct thus : 
" He who comes from heaven, the dis- 
penser of life to the world, is himself 
the bread of God." Alford, on the 
other hand, maintains that what 01- 
shausen takes as the subject is the pre- 
dicate, and translates : " the bread of 
God is that which cometh down from 
heaven." Such also is the translation 
adopted by Stier, and Webster and 
Wilkinson. Tholuck thus translates 
and explains : " That only deserves the 
name of the bread of God, which de- 
scends from heaven, and has the power 
of imparting life to the whole world." 
But this seems to be repetitious of the 
preceding sentiment, and besides does 
not strictly accord with the train of 
thought, which is evidently progressive 
to the great declaration openly made 
in v. 35, that Jesus himself is the bread 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



129 



34 ° Then said they unto him, 

o See ch. 4 : 15. 



of life. The words he which cometh 
down from heaven, look back to the 
words, htm whom he hath sent, in v. 29, 
and would therefore be readily appre- 
hended by the Jews, as referring to a 
living personality, and not to the bread 
itself. He which eometh, or he coming. 
The present tense of the participle re- 
fers not so much to the fact that the 
Son came from heaven, as to the con- 
tinual manifestation made by him as 
the Eternal Logos, whom the heaven 
and heaven of heavens cannot contain 
(1 Kings 8 : 27), much less this earth 
on which the incarnation took place. 
In this sense, there was a continuous 
descent of him who dwelt in the bosom 
of the Father. This great idea, which 
implies our Lord's supreme divinity — a 
truth which is out-cropping in this 
whole discourse — is made by Stier and 
others who refer both the subject and 
predicate to this celestial bread here 
spoken of, to hang on the typical ele- 
ment in the manna, which ever contin- 
ued to descend to supply the wants of 
the people in the wilderness. In this 
respect the true bread from heaven 
was the fulfilment of the type, in its 
ever-present and continued descent 
from heaven to supply the wants of the 
hungry soul. Prof. Crosby also pre- 
fers the translation tJiat which cometh 
down, on the ground that our Lord had 
not yet revealed the great truth that 
he was the bread. See v. 35. So Dr. 
Turner would translate it, the bread 
which cometh down. But is not person- 
ality here required to distinguish the 
true bread of heaven from the manna, 
which David, although in a subordinate 
sense, calls " the com of heaven ? " 
Would there be here any advance in 
the argument from the last clause in 
v. 32, if we exchange the personal he 
(referring to a personage not fully de- 
clared until v. 35), for the pronoun 
that, referring to bread? The train 
of thought has reached that point, 
where the type must give place to the 
person typified ; in a word, where the 
reference must be to the Eternal Son 
Vol. III.— 6* 



Lord, evermore give us this 
bread. 

himself, the true bread of life. So 01- 
shausen well observes, " the coming of 
Christ from heaven was not concluded 
once for all with the birth, but is a 
continuous act, on which account 
Christ was spoken of during his life on 
earth as being in heaven." Unto the 
world. In this respect also the true 
bread from heaven differed from the 
manna in the wilderness, for that was 
provided for the Israelites only, but 
this, for the whole world of mankind. 
Another argument is here furnished 
for referring the words that which com- 
eth, directly to the Son of God, it being 
so accordant with the language em- 
ployed in regard to the purpose of his 
advent. See 1 : 9, 29 ; 3:17; 9:5; 
12:46. The words givcth life to the 
ivorld, are not to be taken irrespective 
of faith and repentance on the part of 
the recipients of this gift of life. 

34. The Jews now in a state of va- 
cillation between belief and unbelief, 
— which latter principle we see in the 
sequel gains the final victory — like the 
woman of Samaria (4 : 15), eagerly de- 
sire this bread which has such wonder- 
ful life-giving properties. It is evident 
that they had little or no conception 
of its true nature, for when made ac- 
quainted with its spiritual character, 
they took offence and went away from 
him. In this respect their conduct was 
widely different from that of the Sa- 
maritan woman and her townsmen, 
who received him gladly and believed 
in his word. It is noticeable that both 
now, and when they first addressed 
him (v. 25), they use a term of respect, 
Rabbi, Lord ; but soon (v. 42) they re- 
fer contemptuously to his low birth, 
and stumble at his want of that high 
social position, wdiich they thought the 
Messiah was to assume. Their use of 
Lord, shows that this was a sincere ut- 
terance, and not evil-minded mockery, 
as Calvin and others after him have 
supposed. Evermore (i. e. at all times, 
whenever we need it) give us this bread. 
Perhaps they had some lingering, un- 
defined hope, that their temporal food 



130 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



35 And Jesus said unto them, 
p I am the bread of life : * he that 
cometh to me shall never hun- 
ger ; and he that believeth on me 
shall never thirst. 

p Ver. 48, 58. 



would be miraculously supplied by Je- 
sus, somewhat after the manner in 
which manna had been divinely pro- 
vided for the Israelites in the wilder- 
ness. That spiritual food was not ap- 
prehended by them, is quite evident 
from the fact, that when apprised that 
this was that to which Jesus referred, 
they rejected it in the most decided 
terms. 

35. Our Lord now plainly disabuses 
them of the mistake into which they 
had fallen, by asserting that he himself 
was the bread of life of which he had 
been speaking. He was the one who 
had come down from heaven, and given 
life unto the world. It was the sole 
object of his mission, to restore men 
to the favor of God and supply their 
spiritual wants, but not to administer 
to their temporal necessities. The 
train of thought in view of the preced- 
ing context is this : ' The true bread 
from heaven is that which my Father 
giveth (v. 32); and this bread is not 
material and earthly, but is he who 
cometh down from heaven to give life 
to the world (v. 33) ; I am that person, 
and proclaim myself to you as the 
bread of life.' He that cometh to me in 
faith and penitence (see v. 29). Our 
Lord began this discourse in the third 
person, but he now carries it on with 
such direct personal reference to him- 
self, that the pronouns i, me, and my, 
in vs. 35-65, occur some forty times. 
Shall never hunger. This refers to spir- 
itual hunger. The negative in the origi- 
nal is of the strongest kind. The same is 
true also of the next clause. See Matt. 
5 : 6. And he that believeth, &c. This 
is parallel with the preceding sentiment, 
the clauses mutually corresponding 
somewhat after the manner of Hebrew 
poetry. This believing on Christ shows 
what is meant in the preceding clause 
by coming to Christ. 



36 r But I said unto you, That 
ye also have seen me, and believe 
not. 



qCh. 4: 14; & 7: ST. 
r Ver. 26, 64 



36. Webster and Wilkinson refer to 
the natural division of this discourse by 
the interpellatory remarks of the Jews. 
" From v. 35 to v. 40, in answer to the 
I request in v. 34, he teaches that He 
came from heaven to give men ever- 
lasting life ; from v. 43 to v. 51, in an- 
swer to the murmurings of the Jews (vs. 
41, 42), he shows that He is himself the 
source of everlasting life ; fi-oin v. 53 
to v. 58, in answer to the objection in 
v. 52, he teaches that through his incar- 
nation and death, and our individual in- 
terest in both, we possess everlasting life 
in Him." But I said unto you. There is 
some difference of opinion among com- 
mentators, as to the time when the 
words were spoken to which reference 
is here made. Bengel, Doddridge, and 
Stier, refer it to v. 26, the sense instead 
of the exact words being given. Liicke 
and De Wette refer it to 5 : 37-44. 
Alford suggests that it may relate to 
some unrecorded saying of Jesus. I 
see no objection to this latter view, al- 
though it seems more natural to refer 
it to the general sentiment of what 
he had said, rather than to any precise 
form of words. Many times even in 
the early stage of his ministry, he had 
occasion to reprove the people for their 
unbelief. Ye also have seen one refers 
to his presence with them, and the 
miracles he had performed in their 
sight. He had given them the most 
open and emphatic proof of his pres- 
ence and power as their true and long 
expected Messiah, and yet they had 
not believed on him. How could he 
expect a different reception on the 
present occasion ? They had virtually 
declared (v. 30), that if he would show 
them some sign on a grand scale, they 
would acknowledge his claims. He 
avers in reply, that they had seen Him — 
in itself a far more glorious sight than 
the most stupendous miracle — and yet 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



131 



37 8 All that the Father giveth 
me shall come to me ; and * him 
that cometh to me I will in no 
wise cast out. 

s Yer. 45. 

t Mat. 2-1: 24 ; ch. 10 : 28, 29 ; 2 Ti. 2:19; 1 Jo. 

2:19. 

they remained in unbelief. This last and 
strongest demand made upon their 
faith in him from his personal presence, 
is more clearly seen in the original 
than in our common version, the word 
rendered also, not being in addition to, 
but even, as though this was the most 
convincing proof which could be pre- 
sented to them of the truth of his word. 
If they rejected this, nothing like a 
cordial and confiding trust in Him was 
to be expected of them. 

37. The sentiment is as though he 
had said : ' Nevertheless it will not be 
so with all to whom my gospel shall be 
preached, for all that the Father giveth 
me shall come unto me,' &c. Reference 
is had in these words to the compact — 
if so sublime and ineffable a transaction 
may be thus expressed — between the 
Father and Son, by virtue of which a 
definite number of the human family, 
in other Scriptures styled the elect, was 
given to the Son, as the purchased in- 
heritance of his blood. Although oth- 
ers should reject him, these would all 
come to him (see vs. 29, 35), and be 
partakers of his glory and blessedness. 
So Doddridge well paraphrases it : " all 
that the Father has graciously chosen 
to himself and whom he giveth me in 
{consequence of a peculiar covenant, to 
'be sanctified and saved by me, will cer- 
tainly at length come to me." See 
IT : 2, 21. In the original the word all, 
is the neuter singular, which is to be 
taken abstractly in a collective sense 
of one integral whole ; but in the next 
clause, him that cometh. unto me, the 
masculine singular is employed, refer- 
ence being had to the individuals of 
whom the mass of believers is compos- 
ed. The word cometh, in this clause, 
represents the act or process of com- 
ing ; the verb shall come, in the pre- 
ceding member, the act considered 
as completed. / will in no wise cast 



38 For I came down from 
heaven, u not to do mine own 
will, x but the will of him that 
sent me. 

u Mat. 26 : 39 ; ch. 5 : 30. 
x Ch. 4 : 34. 



oict, i. e. will not refuse them my grace 
and favor. The promise of receiv- 
ing, preserving, and crowning with 
glory and happiness, contained in these 
blessed words, has given hope and 
comfort to thousands who have looked 
from the depths of despair in faith and 
penitence to Jesus. The imagery is 
founded upon the banishment of a per- 
son from a kingdom, or his ejection from 
the presence and company of those 
with whom he formerly associated. 
Excommunication from the synagogue 
may perhaps be remotely referred to 
(see 9 : 34). The negative form I will 
in no ivise cast out, is emphatically put 
by the figure of speech called litotes, 
for the positive / will assuredly receive. 
38. This verse confirms the promise 
just made. The argument is this : 'If 
our Lord came down from heaven to do 
his Father's will, and if the Father out 
of his boundless grace has given to 
him a portion of the human race to be 
his peculiar people, the Son, to whom 
the will of his Father is the supreme 
law of action, will never reject those 
who are thus divinely drawn unto him. 
His own love for his people and his 
desire to do his Father's will, forbid his 
rejection of any one of those embraced 
in a covenant of such high and merci- 
ful import.' No one however should 
so abuse this glorious truth, as to seek 
to excuse his unbelief and impenitence 
on the ground, that he may not be one 
of those included in this covenant of 
redemption, for the promise with which 
this passage concludes (see v. 40), is 
ample enough to embrace all, who will 
come to Jesus with broken and contrite 
hearts, and sue for mercy and forgive- 
ness. For would be better translated 
inasmuch as. The tense of the verb 
came down, is the perfect, have come 
down (and am now here). A literal 
rendering would have given more em- 



132 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



39 And this is the Father's will 
which hath sent me, y that of all 
which he hath given me I should 
lose nothing, but should raise it 
up again at the last day. 

40 And this is the will of him 

that sent me, z that every one 

yCh.l0:28;&17:12;&18:9. 
s Ver. 27: 47, 54; ch. 3 : 15, 16; & 4 : 14. 

phasis and vivacity to the thought, by 
representing the act spoken of as hav- 
ing reference to the present time. 
Webster and Wilkinson render it, lam 
descended, not to do mine own will, apart 
and separate from that of the Father. 
See 5 : 30. 

39. This verse expresses more dis- 
tinctly what was the will of the Father. 
It refers back to the covenant brought 
to view in v. 37, and confirms its merci- 
ful provision in regard to the recovery 
from sin and death of those who are 
embraced in it. Will is here taken in 
the sense of purpose, counsel. In v. 
38, it has the sense of the thing willed 
or wished to be done. With the words of 
all which he hath given me, supply from 
v. 37, and come rmto me. The Father's 
will in regard to such is, that Jesus 
shall lose nothing (literally, shall not 
lose any thing from it), that is, that 
he shall reject no one thus drawn 
unto him by the Father's elective 
grace, and coming to him in faith 
and penitence. The word rendered 
all, in this passage, is a collective 
neuter as in v. 37. The common 
translation, that of all which he hath 
given me, is a slight departure from 
strict accuracy, the construction being 
that in regard to all, &c. Should raise 
it up, &c. This final resurrection is 
the consummation of his covenant 
faithfulness and enduring love for his 
people. The neuter it, conforms to 
the gender of all, and is in like manner 
to be taken in a collective sense of all his 
people. Last day, i. e. the day of final 
judgment, a use of the words peculiar 
to John. See 11 : 24; 12: 48. 

40. The argument is here progress- 
ive. The promise which in v. 39, was 
expressed negatively is here positively 



which seeth the Son, and believ- 
eth on him, may have everlasting 
life : and I will raise him up at 
the last day. 

41 The Jews then murmured 
at him, because he said, I am the 



bread which 
heaven. 



came down from 



affirmed. It was there declared that 
no one would be lost who had been 
given to him by the Father ; this verse 
promises to all such everlasting life, 
and reiterates and confirms the promise 
of a glorious resurrection at the last 
day. Increased emphasis is also im- 
parted to the promise here made, by 
the employment of the masculine pro- 
noun him, instead of the neuter collec- 
tive it, in v. 39. This verse is not there- 
fore an empty repetition of the preced- 
ing one, but amplifies and renders sure 
the promise and pledge to every be- 
liever. Seeth the Son, i. e. discerns in 
him the true Messiah and Saviour of 
the world. Mere natural vision as in 
v. 36, is not here referred to, but that 
spiritual sight which every believing 
soul obtains of Jesus, when from the 
depths of sin, it turns and looks unto 
Him for salvation. Believeth on him. 
Saving faith necessarily follows the 
spiritual vision just referred to. First 
in order is the hearing of a Saviour 
through the preaching of his word 
(Rom. 10 : 14); then follow a spiritual 
perception and acknowledgment of his 
claims, and saving faith in his blood. 
And I will raise, &c. Our Lord here 
pledges himself to the performance of 
what in v. 39, was declared to be the 
will of the Father. The pronoun I, has 
emphatic prominence in the original, 
indicating the full personal concurrence 
of the Son in the merciful designs of 
the Father. 

41, 42. The multitude present, as 
has been remarked (see N. on v. 28), 
was composed of various classes of 
persons. Some had witnessed his mir- 
acle on the other side of the lake, and 
were now present to hear him still fur- 
ther. Others had been drawn to the 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



133 



42 And they said, a Is not this 
Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose 
father and mother we know ? how 
is it then that he saith, I came 
down from heaven ? 

43 Jesus therefore answered 

a Mat. 13 ; 55 ; Ma. 6 : 3 ; Lu. 4 : 22. 



synagogue by the fame of his doctrine 
and works ; and others undoubtedly 
came to find some cause of accusation 
against him. Very different impres- 
sions would be made upon such a 
mixed assembly by this discourse, and 
we should guard against inferring that 
all his hearers murmured at his doc- 
trine. It is very evident, however, 
that the leading persons were offended 
at his claims, for the term Jews, is gen- 
erally used by John to denote persons 
of station and high official authority 
(see N. on 2: 18). At him ; literally, 
concerning or about him. These mur- 
murs of disapprobation were confined 
to their own circle, but either reached 
the ear of Jesus, or what is more prob- 
able (see N. on v. 43), were known 
to him by his omniscience. Because 
he said, &c. While they failed to 
comprehend the great truth contained 
in the words of Jesus, they were fully 
assured that there was an assumption 
by him of superhuman power and au- 
thority. Hence they scoffingly refer 
to his parentage and family position. 
Is not this Jesus, &c. The form of 
the interrogation is the one which im- 
plies an affirmative answer, which in 
their estimation was sufficient to over- 
throw all his claims to the Messiahship. 
They regarded his declaration that he 
was the bread which cometh down 
from heaven, as equivalent to a denial 
of his earthly parentage. To this ex- 
traordinary assumption they oppose the 
well-known facts of his birth and social 
relations. It is remarked by Stier, that 
their objection is not so much against 
his calling himself the bread of fife in 
and of itself, as against his coining 
down from heaven asserted in connec- 
tion with it. How is it then, &c. Well 
might they wonder at a fact so inex- 
plicable to natural reason. But had 



and said unto them, Murmur not 
among yourselves. 

44 b No man can come to me, 
except the Father which hath 
sent me draw him : and I will 
raise him up at the last day. 

I Cant. 1:4; ver. 65. 

they attended to his instructions, and 
given due weight to the testimony 
which he bore of himself, and which 
was confirmed by the most extraordi- 
nary miracles, they would have solved 
the difficulty by crying out with Peter, 
"thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
living God." Joseph was probably now 
dead, but they speak of him as one 
whom while living they knew. This 
reference to his parents, in the way of 
objection to his Messiahship, was made 
on one, and perhaps two other occa- 
sions. See Matt. 13 : 55 ; Luke 4: 22. 

43. If, as was probable, their mur- 
murings were expressed in tones so 
low as to be inaudible to all but them- 
selves, Jesus gave them, at this very 
time, a proof of his superhuman knowl- 
edge by showing that he knew the sub- 
ject of their conversation. Murmur not 
among yourselves. This was intended 
as a mild reproof against warding off 
the force of truth by captious objections. 
It is implied also that greater and more 
mysterious truths were yet in store for 
them, and they would do well to pre- 
serve that calmness of mind, which 
would enable them to judge rightly of 
his claims and of the duties which his 
advent imposed upon them. It is to 
be noticed that here, as well as in v. 
26, instead of replying directly to the 
point on which their mind was labor- 
ing, how to reconcile his claim of heav- 
enly origin with his well-known earthly 
parentage, he reasserts in a more full 
and emphatic manner the great truth 
to which he had just given utterance 
(vs. 37-40), that he was the bread of 
life, to be spiritually received by all 
who would avail themselves of the ben- 
efits of his mission. 

44. No man can come to me, &c. 
This is a varied repetition of v. 37, ac- 
cording to the custom of John, to ex- 



134 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



45 c It is written in the proph- 
ets, And they shall be all taught 

els. 54:13; Je. 31:34; ML 4:2; He. 8:10; 
&10:16. 



press an emphatic truth both positively 
and negatively. In v. 37, an effect 
was declared to follow in every case 
from a certain cause ; here it is denied 
that this effect will follow from any 
other cause. See Webster and Wil- 
kinson. An implied reference is also 
made to the obstacles in the way of 
the reception and right understanding 
of truth, which exist in the unrenewed 
heart. No one will come to Christ and 
feed upon him in faith, but such as are 
drawn thereto by the Father. Hence 
instead of indulging in idle murmurs 
and frivolous objections, they should 
most earnestly seek for this heavenly 
influence to draw them to Christ. This 
makes clear the connection with- the 
preceding clause, and meets the wants 
of the passage itself. Prof. Crosby 
finds this connection : " Do not think 
it strange that you cannot appreciate 
my words, and thus murmur at my dec- 
larations ; for you never have allowed 
God to draw you to the truth, and no 
man can come to me unless he be thus 
drawn." The word rendered draw, is 
always used with the collateral idea of 
force and exertion, as when a ship is 
di-awn down into the sea, or the body 
of an animal is dragged along. It is 
also used of .wrestling, bending the 
bow, stretching sails — indeed of almost 
every physical act requiring strength 
and exertion. When employed there- 
fore as here, of the drawing of men to 
Christ, the word carries with it the 
idea of a mighty exertion of moral 
power, such as would be required to 
overcome the opposing tendencies of 
sin and unbelief. It should always be 
borne in mind that the inability to 
come to Christ, spoken of in this verse, 
is a moral and not a natural one. It 
results from the deep aversion of the 
natural man to holiness. It requires 
no new faculties, no change of the 
mental organization. It is simply the 
renewal of the heart, the transferral of 
the affections from things earthly to 



of God. d Every man therefore 
that hath heard, and hath learned 
of the Father, cometh unto me. 

d Ver. 37. 



those which are heavenly and divine. 
The change, however, is so radical that 
it will never take place unless it is 
wrought of God. No pretentious array 
of good works can effect this result. 
With a penitent heart and a reliance 
upon Christ for salvation, the sinner 
must yield himself up to what Luther 
calls "this gracious allurement," this 
drawing of eternal love working in him 
faith in Jesus and obedience to his will. 
/ will raise him up. A solemn and em- 
phatic reiteration of the glorious resur- 
rection, to which they will attain who 
are thus drawn by the Father to Christ. 
45. Our Lord now shows that this 
drawing by the Father of which he had 
just spoken, was in accordance with 
Scripture, which declares that divine 
illumination and instruction are impart- 
ed to all such as are drawn to Him in 
faith and love. The quotation here made 
is from Isa. 54 : IS. The prophets is 
here put for the prophetical portion of 
the Old Testament. Taught of God, i. e. 
divinely instructed. In the original 
prophecy, reference is had to the times 
of the church's prosperity, when all 
shall be under the divine guidance and 
instruction. See Jer. 31 : 34. But in 
the application of the prophecy, our 
Lord shows that no one can attain to 
salvation through Christ, who has not 
been divinely taught the way of life. 
This spiritual illumination does not 
cease with the first act of faith in the 
Kedeemer, but becomes more and more 
resplendant, until the soul is filled with 
inward light, producing peace, joy, and 
love. See Pro v. 4 : 18. Every man. 
In the quotation of the prophecy the 
plural all, was used, because of its ref- 
erence to the great body of believers. 
But here it is made to include such 
only, as are selected by the sovereign 
grace of God to be the recipients of 
this inward illumination. The applica- 
tion of this prophecy to Jesus, was 
plain and pertinent. They w r ere in a 
state of wonder and doubt, as to the 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



135 



46 e Not that any man Lath 
seen the Father, / save he which 
is of God, he hath seen the Father. 

47 Verily, verily, I say unto 

« Ch. 1:18; & 5:37. 

/Matt. 11:27: Lu. 10:2:2; ch. 1:18; &7:29; 

& S : 19. 

meaning of this coming to Christ, this 
feeding upon him as the true bread of 
life. He shows from the Scriptures, 
that they will never discern this truth 
so as to profit by it, unless they are 
divinely instructed in reference thereto. 
For if divine illumination was necessary 
to the church in the days of her highest 
enlightenment and prosperity, it was 
very clear, that no one, while yet in 
spiritual darkness, would discern the 
way of salvation, unless his eyes were 
opened by the same divine illuminating 
influence, which was to be so copiously 
and continuously shed upon those who 
had already entered upon the way of 
life. The argument from the prophecy 
here cited, is therefore a fortiori (Matt. 
5 : 15). If those who are already the 
subjects of God's renewing grace con- 
tinually stand in need of enlightening 
influences from above, much more is this 
divine illumination required in leading 
the dark and benighted soul to Christ. 
Hath heard and hath learned is a varied 
form of expression, for taught of the 
Lord in the original prediction. The 
natural order of instruction is followed 
in the words, hath heard and hath 
learned. 

4G. Our Lord guards his hearers 
against the false notion, that any im- 
mediate or personal manifestation of 
the Father is to be made to them. The 
only medium of communication was the 
Son, the great Revealer of the ways of 
God to men, who alone had seen the 
Father. Which is of God. The preposi- 
tional construction both here and in 
7 : 29 (on which see Note), requires the 
translation who is come from God, i. e. 
from a state or condition of rest and 
repose by the side of God in closest 
proximity. It represents the same close 
and indissoluble union, together with 
distinct and independent personality, 



you, 9 He tha't believeth on me 
hath everlasting life. 

48 h I am the bread of life. 

49 '' Your fathers did eat manna 
in the wilderness, and are dead^ 

{/Ch. 3:16, 18, 36; ver. 40. 
h Ver. 33, 35. i Ver. 31. 



which is declared in 1 : 1, to exist be- 
tween the Father and Son. 

47. Having thus claimed to be the 
only one who has personal knowledge 
of the Father, our Lord solemnly 
{verily, verily) announces a truth of the 
most vital importance, which followed 
as the necessary consequence of the 
preceding declaration. Faith in him 
as the Son of God and Saviour of men, 
who alone had seen God and was able 
to reveal Him to men, is in the most 
explicit terms declared to be the only 
way of obtaining everlasting life. This 
was indirectly referred to in v. 40, but 
is here repeated in the most emphatic 
manner. Hath. The present tense 
shows that the believer in Christ has 
already partaken of that spiritual bread, 
which has the principle of eternal life. 
Alford well remarks, that our Lord 
now recurs to the subject of their mur- 
murs, and gives the answer for which 
he has been preparing the way. 

48. i" am that (literally the) bread of 
life. An emphatic repetition of v. 35, 
for which declaration the way has been 
so prepared, that its true import cannot 
now be mistaken. The argument is 
that the believer in Jesus cannot fail of 
everlasting life, for in Him resides the 
principle and element of life. Thus as 
bread sustains and prolongs human 
existence, so they who believe in Christ 
draw from him such spiritual nourish- 
ment, that he is to them the bread of life. 

49. The comparison between out 
Lord and Moses, which had been covert- 
ly instituted by the Jews (v. 31), is here 
reverted to. The manna with which 
they had been fed while under the 
conduct of Moses in the wilderness, 
had in itself no life-giving power, inas- 
much as all who had eaten of it were 
then dead. Not having therefore the 
power to avert death, it was not the 



136 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



50 h This is the bread which 
cometh down from heaven, that 
a man may eat thereof, and not 
die. 

51 1 am the living bread l which 
came down from heaven : if any 

k Yer. 51, 58. 

true bread which came down from 
heaven. Your fathers. Jesus does not 
say our fathers, as did the Jews(v. 31), 
for prominence in this whole discourse 
is given to the great truth that He was 
God's Son, and as such had no com- 
munity of parentage with the Jews. 
Yet as " made of the seed of David 
according to the flesh " (Rom. 1 : 3), he 
might have said our fathers, equally 
with his adversaries on the present 
occasion. Stier finds here also a re- 
proving allusion, " your unbelieving 
fathers, whose genuine children, alas, 
ye approve yourselves to be (see Matt. 
23 : 31, 32)." In the wilderness. There 
is an implied contrast between the arid 
and sandy desert, where the Israelites 
were sustained by this manna, and the 
green pastures and still waters (Ps. 
23 : 2), where they repose who are 
partakers of the true bread of life. 

50. Contrasted with this temporal 
and perishable food, to which the Jews 
had so boastingly referred, our Lord 
adduces the life-preserving properties 
of the true bread which cometh down 
from heaven, and which in vs. 35, 48, 
he had emphatically declared himself to 
be. Whosoever should eat of that 
bread would never die. Spiritual life 
is here referred to, as contrasted with 
natural life, which was prolonged only 
for a season by the manna of the desert. 
The clause that a man may eat thereof, 
and not die (i. e. that a man by eating 
thereof may not die), contains the rea- 
son why this bread from heaven was 
given to man. It also denotes the 
criterion by which the true bread of 
life was to be distinguished from that 
which was earthly and temporal. It 
contained the element of eternal life, 
so that whoever partook of it would 
never die. Although spiritual life is 
here primarily referred to, the resurrec- 



man eat of this bread, he shall 
live for ever : and m the bread 
that I will give is my flesh, which 
I will give for the life of the 

world. 



ZCh.S:13. 

m He. 10 : 5, 10. 



tion of the body to a condition of glory 
and blessedness is also comprised in the 
gift. Of it ; literally, out of or from it. 
The form of construction in the original, 
indicates the mass or store out of which 
the thing was taken (see 1ST. on vs. 11, 
13). This heavenly bread which had in 
it such life-giving qualities, was furnish- 
ed in inexhaustible quantity. However 
great the number of those who partake 
of it, they only eat of it, but can never 
consume it. See 1 John 4: 13, where 
the words " He hath given us of His 
Spirit," contain the same idea of inex- 
haustible fulness. 

51. The discourse now becomes more 
pointed and plain, while at the same 
time, its deep spiritual significancy 
renders it very difficult of interpreta- 
tion. I am the living bread, &c. The 
original is quite peculiar : / am the 
bread (viz.) that which is living, (even I) 
who came down from heaven. His audi- 
tors can no longer be in doubt as to the 
meaning of his previous declarations 
respecting himself. He stood before 
them poor and humble in this world's 
estimation, yet he declares himself to 
have come down from heaven, the 
Source and Dispenser of eternal life to 
all such as believe on him. The word 
living, has the force of life-giving, as is 
evident from the next clause, where it 
is said that whoever partakes of this 
bread shall live forever. The construc- 
tion of the original is such as to impart 
this shade of sense, ' whoever partakes 
of this bread in the least degree.' 
Another point of contrast between the 
true bread from heaven and the manna 
of the wilderness. Dr. Turner notices 
the grammatical ambiguity of the ori- 
ginal, by which the words " which came 
down from heaven," may refer either 
to i" or to bread, and would therefore 
take the clause in its most comprehen- 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



137 



52 The Jews therefore n strove 
»Ch.7:43;&9:16;&10:19. 

sive reference to both these antece- 
dents. The meaning, as he remarks, 
would remain the same ; but for 
reasons given in the N". on v. 33, the 
sole reference to the pronoun 7, is to 
be preferred. In the light of v. 35, 
compared with v. 38, there is no ambi- 
guity of sense, however it may be re- 
garded in a grammatical point of view. 
He shall live for ever. Mere existence, 
which belongs equally to the good and 
bad, is not that which is here designat- 
ed, but life in the higher and more 
spiritual sense — a living life, as opposed 
to a living death, conferred upon all 
who partake of this bread from heaven. 
And (i. e. moreover) the bread which I 
shall give, &c. Our Lord bad thrice 
declared (vs. 35, 48, 51) that he himself 
was this living bread, but now he 
changes the form of expression, and 
speaks of it as something which he 
will give for the life of the world. In 
what sense can this be taken, except as 
having reference to the atonement 
which he made by giving his life a ran- 
som for sin ? His body was broken 
and his blood was shed to procure life 
eternal for man. Hence by a natural 
figure of speech, his body or flesh is 
here declared to be spiritual bread, 
containing in it such spiritual suste- 
nance, that whoever feeds upon it shall 
receive therefrom eternal life. His 
death was our life, and therefore his 
body, as that which alone could die, is 
declared to be the source and principle 
of life, and so essential to human sal- 
vation, that it must even be eaten (i. e. 
spiritually partaken of through faith), 
in order that the benefits of his death 
in bestowing life to the lost race of 
man, may be realized. Our Lord then 
in this passage virtually declared the 
necessity and future fact of his death, 
since in no other way than by an 
atonement for sin through his death, 
could the blessing of eternal life be 
given to men. The remark of Afford, 
that his death is here meant, because 
the flesh of no live animal is eaten, 
places the argument on too low a basis. 



among themselves, saying, ° How 

oCh. 8:9. 

"We have also the declaration of our 
Lord himself in the next clause, that 
he will give his flesh (i. e. his body) for 
the life of the world. This is plainly 
declarative both of his death and its 
object or purpose. It was to give life 
to the world. How was this life to be 
appropriated and rendered available to 
men ? By faith in Him as an all-suf- 
ficient Saviour. It is thus that the be- 
liever feeds upon the flesh of Christ, 
the life-giving properties of which are 
communicated to him, because Jesus 
suffered and died in his stead. Dod- 
dridge finds a beautiful gradation in 
this verse compared with v. 31 : " They 
had insinuated that feeding a few thou- 
sands with the five loaves was an in- 
considerable thing, when compared 
with what Moses did, when he fed the 
whole camp of Israel; but our Lord 
declares the purposes of his grace and 
bounty to be far more extensive, as 
reaching the whole world, and giving 
life, immortal life, to all that should 
believe on him." For (i. e. in behalf 
of) the life of the world. Although the 
benefits of Christ's death in the higher 
sense of eternal salvation, will be theirs 
only who believe on him, yet in a lower 
and more general sense, the whole hu- 
man family are benefited thereby. All 
enjoy a day of probation. The com- 
mon blessings of life, such as health, 
food, raiment, social and intellectual 
enjoyment, the tender ties of family re- 
lationship, are all departures from the 
award of strict justice, which could not 
have been granted to sinful man had 
not Christ died. Above all the proffer 
of salvation through his atoning death, 
made to every being to whom the mes- 
sage of salvation is proclaimed, and the 
salvable condition of those who have 
never heard of the name of Jesus, but 
who act up to the teachings of natural 
conscience, in view of those invisible 
things of God clearly seen from the 
creation of the world, and understood 
by the things that are made (Rom. 1 : 
20) — attest as by a voice from the 
skies, that Jesus Christ did in verity 



138 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



can this man give us Ms flesh to 
eat? 

53 Then Jesus said unto them, 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, 

give his body for the life of the world 
in its most enlarged sense. Stier well 
sums up the teachings of this wondrous 
passage. " Life is giTen to us through 
his appropriated death, and the vehicle 
of that gift is truly his flesh and blood, 
become for us spirit and life." 

52. The Jews received this strange 
announcement of our Lord in its most 
literal sense. It is evident, however, 
that some of those who listened to the 
discourse, had more correct views of 
the spiritual nature of this food, or else 
there would have been no difference of 
opinion, out of which arose the strife 
to which reference is here made. The 
word strove, is the Greek middle voice, 
and must be taken in a reciprocal sense, 
the translation being strove among 
themselves. Among themselves, in our 
common version, is a mistranslation 
for against one another, the trans- 
lators not perceiving that this idea lay 
in the verb, and not in the words here 
joined with it. A literal translation 
would be, strove among themselves one 
against another, indicating that the 
people were all wrangling and dis- 
puting with one another, in regard to 
these strange words which fell upon 
their ear. They would doubtless have 
dismissed the words as having fallen 
from the lips of an enthusiast or insane 
person, but the great miracle of the pre- 
ceding day, and other wondrous works 
of his which they had seen or heard 
of, together with his calm and dignified 
demeanor, convinced some of them at 
least, that he was no ordinary man, 
much less a fanatic or mad enthusiast. 
What were murmurs in v. 41, are now 
the loud voices of earnest, if not angry 
debate. Bloomneld divides the dis- 
putants into the higher class, the in- 
veterate enemies of Jesus, and the 
lower class, from which were gathered 
mostly his disciples. But so profound 
was the reverence of the lower for the 
upper class, especially those of civil 



Except p ye eat the flesh of the 
Son of man, and drink his blood, 
ye have no life in you. 

p Mat. 26 : 26, 28. 

or priestly authority, that such a di- 
vision of the assembly, on the present 
occasion, is not very probable. It was 
nevertheless true then, as it afterwards 
more fully appeared, that he had com- 
paratively very few adherents in the 
upper and more powerful classes of 
society. Such to the present day has 
been one of the most prominent and 
unchanging features of Christianity. 
See 1 Cor. 1 : 26-28. How can this 
man. The word man, is wanting in 
the original, and the pronoun is there- 
fore used in its contemptuous sense, 
this fellow, this crack-brained person. 
Such perhaps is its use in v. 42. The 
question is proposed by his enemies ; 
the reply of his friends is not given. 
Webster and "Wilkinson refer this ques- 
tion to both his friends and enemies, 
but this implies too much unanimity to 
suit the fierce dissension implied in the 
words, strove among themselves against 
one another. Our translators need not 
have italicized the word his, in his flesh, 
since it is expressed in the original 
by the accompanying article. 

53. We may suppose that a pause 
took place in our Lord's discourse, 
either intentional on his part, or in con- 
sequence of interruption through the 
tumultuous excitement occasioned by 
his declaration in v. 51. In resuming 
his address, he takes no notice of the 
possibility of eating his flesh, which had 
been the point of dispute among his 
auditors, but speaks of its indispensable 
necessity as the only ground of eternal 
life. Verily, verily. These confirma- 
tory adverbs indicate the importance 
of the truth about to be announced, as in 
vs. 26, 47. They were not only to eat 
his flesh, but were even to drink his 
blood, else they had no life in them. 
Instead of clearing up the difficulty which 
perplexed his auditors, he now pro- 
pounds another condition on which 
eternal life is to be bestowed, involving 
an equal if not greater apparent ab- 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER TI. 



139 



54 q Whoso eateth my flesh, 

gYer. 87,40,63; ch. 4:14. 

surdity to their carnal understandings. 

The drinking the blood of an animal had 
been forbidden from the days of Xoah 
(see Gen. 9 : -4), and great therefore 
must have been their astonishment, 
when solemnly informed that they must 
drink the blood of Jesus, or else forfeit 
all hope of salvation. 

In regard to this drinking of our 
Lord's blood, the same principle is to 
be applied, by which we attain to a 
right understanding of the eating of his 
flesh. His blood was to be shed for sin, 
for without the shedding of blood, there 
is no remission of sin (Heb. 9 : 22). 
This was therefore an essential element 
in the offering, which Jesus made of 
himself for the sin of the world. Xot 
only was his body to be broken, but his 
blood was to be shed, in order that be- 
lievers may have boldness to enter 
(i. e. have free access to) the heavenly 
sanctuary, through the new and living 
way which he has consecrated by his 
death (see Heb. 10 : 19, 20). That the 
blood of our Lord was actually shed in 
his crucifixion, see 19 : 34. But long 
before the soldier's spear was thrust into 
his side, in his great and mysterious 
travail of agony under his Father's frown, 
he was virtually shedding his very 
heart's blood for the sins of men. There 
is, however, nothing literal or physical 
in this drinking of the blood of Jesus. 
But a living faith so unites the soul to 
Christ, that the bond would not be 
more indissoluble, if there was a real 
corporeal union. This living, enduring 
faith in Jesus as a divine Saviour, by 
which the benefits of his death are ap- 
propriated to the believer, is here ex- 
pressed under the significant figure of 
eating his flesh and drinking his blood, 
the language being suggested by the 
great miracle of the feeding of the five 
thousand, out of which the discourse 
arose. This same vital union of the 
soul with Christ is expressed in 15 : 1-6, 
under the figure of the vine and its 
branches, the same great truth being 
taught under both forms of imagery, 
that Christ is the fife of the soul. 



and drinketh my blood, hath eter- 



The question upon which so much has 
been written and said, whether the 
Eucharist is here directly referred to, the 
limits of this commentary will not per- 
mit me to fully discuss. In my judg- 
ment, the Lord's Supper is not referred 
to other than very indirectly. The 
argument here is upon the necessity of 
feeding by faith upon the flesh and 
blood of Christ ; while the Eucharist is 
declared in the most express terms, to 
have been instituted to keep the death 
of Christ in remembrance (Luke 22 : 
19 ; 1 Cor. 11 : 24), and thus to assist in 
strengthening and giving vitality to the 
faith, by which alone spiritual nourish- 
ment is drawn from the Redeemer. 
The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is 
not a saving ordinance, and cannot 
therefore be synonymous with this re- 
ception of the body and blood of Christ, 
which is declared in the most express 
terms to be the eternal life of the 
soul. The one is an external rite or 
symbol ; the other is a spiritual act, in- 
troducing the soul to Christ, and unit- 
ing it to him in a living and indissolu- 
j ble union. That the elements of bread 
j and wine in the Eucharist, were chosen 
j to symbolically represent Christ's body 
and blood, there can be no question. 
But the reception of his body and blood 
as the food of the soul, is not attained 
through these external emblems, but by 
faith in the Son of God as the Saviour 
of men. By overlooking the true de- 
sign and intent of the Lord's Supper, it 
has been perverted by some to be the 
medium of the actual transmission of 
Christ into the soul of the believer ; 
whereas this is the province and func- 
tion of faith, assisted indeed but not 
superseded by the partaking of the ex- 
j ternal emblems of his body and blood 
in the Eucharist. Dr. Turner well re- 
marks, " that on the theory by which 
this passage is expounded of the Eucha- 
rist, it is not easy to explain the fact 
I that John in his Gospel gives no account 
of the institution." This argument is 
pressed with 'great force and pertinency 
by that learned and judicious expositor. 



140 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



nal life ; and I will raise him up 
at the last day. 

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, 
and my blood is drink indeed. 

56 He that eateth my flesh, and 

rlJo. 3:24;&4:15, 16. 

54. The preceding verse declares the 
necessity of this spiritual food, to the 
acquisition of eternal life. This verse 
reaffirms the promise, made in v. 40, of 
eternal life and a glorious resurrection, 
to all who appropriate to themselves 
the benefits of his death by thus feeding 
in faith upon his flesh and drinking his 
blood. Whoso eateth ; literally, he that 
eateth. Hath eternal life. As eternal 
life is promised in v. 47 (on which see 
Note) to those who believe on Christ, 
and in this verse the same possession of 
life everlasting, is declared to result 
from partaking of Christ's flesh and 
blood, it clearly shows that this latter 
act is but the varied and emphatic ex- 
pression of that living faith in him as a 
divine Redeemer, which is declared in 
v. 4*7, and elsewhere, to be the only 
way by which the benefits of his death 
may be secured to a soul lost and ruined 
by sin. Nothing can be plainer than 
this, if an intelligent comparison is in- 
stituted between this verse and v. 47, 
where faith is made the grand condition 
on which is supended the eternal life of 
the soul. / will raise him up, &c. See 
vs. 39, 40, 44. The repetition of this 
promise shows, that it is the crowning 
act of our Lord's love for his people, 
and should inspire them with the most 
joyous anticipations of the time, when 
corruption shall put on incorruption, 
and mortal shall put on immortality, and 
death shall he swallowed up in victory. 
See 1 Cor. 15 : 51-57. It is the resur- 
rection of the righteous which is so in- 
estimable a blessing ; that of the wick- 
ed serves only to render their misery 
more complete and unendurable. 

55. This verse is illustrative of the 
preceding. It furnishes the reason why 
those who eat our Lord's flesh and 
drink his blood shall have eternal life. 
The principal word in this verse is in- 
deed, i. e. truly, really in the very high- 



drinketh my blood, r dwelleth in 
me, and I in him. 

57 As the living Father hath 
sent me, and I live by the Fa- 
ther ; so he that eateth me, even 
he shall live by me. 



est sense. No spiritual life can bo en- 
joyed from any other source. This is 
the true and essential food of the soul, 
without which spiritual starvation and 
eternal death must ensue. It is neces- 
sary, therefore, to the life of the soul, 
that it shall feed upon this true and es- 
sential food, which alone has in itself 
the element of eternal life. 

56. The inseparable union between 
Christ and the believer is now brought 
to view, as the consequence of this 
feeding upon his body and blood. 
Dwelleth in me, &c. Olshausen com- 
pares with this the Pauline expression, 
putting on Christ. Rom. 13 : 14 ; Gal. 
3 : 27. How eminently spiritual was 
this discourse of Jesus, is seen in the mu- 
tual interpenetration of spirit predicat- 
ed here of Christ and the believer ; for 
no one can for a moment suppose, that 
this indwelling is a corporeal one. The 
sentiment is that they who take Christ 
into their soul by this spiritual" feeding 
upon him, shall be in like manner taken 
into his soul ; so that as Christ dwells in 
the bosom of the Father (1 : 18), their 
life shall be hid with Christ in God 
(Col. 3 : 3). This indwelling of the 
soul in Christ is a sure guaranty against 
all evil, and a pledge of eternal life 
through his blood. 

57. The thought of the preceding 
verse is still further expanded in this. 
The believer is not only united to Christ 
by the mutual indwelling which results 
from eating and drinking his body and 
blood, but as Christ lives by the Fa- 
ther, and the believer lives by and in 
him, he is united through Christ to the 
Father himself. The argument thus 
reaches the very climax of divine love 
and goodness. The living Father, i. e. 
He who is the source of all life and be- 
ing. Hath sent me. See 5 : 37. Hive 
by the Father. This does not conflict 
with the doctrine of the independent 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



141 



58 s This is that bread which 
caine down from heaven : not as 

s Yer. 49, 50, 51. 

and underived existence of the second 
Person of the Trinity. It is as Medi- 
ator, God-man, that he lives through 
and by the Father, and as Doddridge re- 
marks, "has the same dependence on 
the providence and influence of God, 
which other creatures have." But the 
life here spoken of, is something more 
than natural life, being of the same kind 
as that which the believer shall live by 
him. The reference is therefore espe- 
cially made to that high spiritual life, 
which Christ as Redeemer and Mediator 
draws from the Father, and in turn 
communicates to those who are partici- 
pators of his flesh and blood. Bloom- 
field finds an enallage in this verse, and 
would translate, as the Father liveth 
which hath sent me, the antithesis being 
in liveth, and not in hath sent. In like 
manner, Dr. Burton paraphrases the 
passage : "I have life in myself, and 
have power to give life, because the 
Father (who dwelleth in me, and I in 
him) hath life in himself, and hath pow- 
er to give life." The preposition in by 
the Father, denotes the efficient cause, 
for otherwise it would bereave the fol- 
lowing words shall live by me, of all 
force. The dependence is not merely 
external and incidental, but enters into 
the very foundation and essence of spir- 
itual life. Webster and Wilkinson in- 
terpret the passage, because of the Fa- 
ther who has life in himself (5 : 26) ; 
and because of me, " because I live ye 
shall live also" (14 : 19). So Winer : 
i" live owing to the Father, i. e. I live 
because the Father lives. This does 
not vary the sense. The expression 
eateth me, comprehends both the eating 
his flesh and drinking his blood, and 
gives no occasion for De Wette's re- 
mark, that our Lord drops the idea of 
drinking his blood, as only having been 
occasioned by the accidental circum- 
stance of v. 52. " It was with deep 
earnestness and rigid meaning, without 
any inducement thereto from without, 
that he spake of flesh and blood as the 



your fathers did eat manna, and 
are dead : he that eateth of this 
bread shall live for ever. 



interpretation of bread, and it is only 
because He is returning back to this 
original expression, that He now speaks 
only of eating, the drinking being obvi- 
ously included." Stier. 

58. Having thus conducted his hear- 
ers to the sublime doctrine, that life in 
its highest and most spiritual sense, 
can be secured only by feeding spiritu- 
ally upon his body and blood, our Lord 
returns to the article of bread whence 
the discourse arose. He reiterates what 
he had said in vs. 35, 48-51, and hav- 
ing again contrasted this living bread 
with the perishable manna of the wil- 
derness, concludes by reaffirming that 
whosoever partook of this true bread 
which came down from heaven, should 
live for ever. A more sublime and 
highly spiritual discourse was never 
spoken. No one in the present life can 
fully sound its depths, or reach its lofty 
heights. Eternity alone will suffice to 
unfold its full and ineffable meaning. 
Tfiis is that (literally the) bread, i. e. 
such is the true bread. A comprehen- 
sive summary of the argument evolved 
in the preceding discourse. Which 
came down. The past tense is here em- 
ployed instead of the present (v. 50), 
because, as Alford well suggests, Jesus 
has clearly identified this bread with 
himself. Not as your fathers did eat 
manna (literally the manna), &c. i. e. 
not such bread as was the manna which 
your fathers eat, and which did not 
preserve them from death. Stier gives 
it this turn: " not a bread from heaven, 
in the manner in which ye spoke of it, 
when I was constrained to add, and 
died" (v. 49). This commentator re- 
gards manna, as the result of some 
gloss, " which aimed to accurately sum 
up the whole, but which weakened the 
emphasis of what was designedly spo- 
ken without it." But it appears to me 
that the sentiment would have been 
quite obscure, had this word been 
wanting in the original. There is a 
twofold antithesis in the word as here 



142 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



59 These things said he in the 
synagogue, as he taught in Ca- 
pernaum. 

60 T" Many therefore of his 

found ; it was not the true bread from 
heaven, nor did it confer upon those 
who partook of it eternal life. This 
double antithesis would hardly be dis- 
cernible, were the word manna, to be 
expunged from the text. He that 
eateth of this bread (i. e. the bread 
which came down from heaven) shall 
live for ever. This is the sum of the 
whole argument : Jesus Christ who came 
down from heaven, is declared to be 
the true bread which giveth life to the 
soul. 

59. As he taught ; literally, while teach- 
ing. This discourse was therefore a part 
of the synagogue worship, following im- 
mediately upon the reading of the law 
and prayer (see N". on Luke 4 : 16-21). 
It is evident on the face of the passage, 
that the separation between the true 
and false disciples, took place on the 
very day in which this sublime dis- 
course was spoken. 

60-65. These verses furnish a re- 
markable example of the sifting power 
of truth. There had been no violence 
of manner or language on the part of 
Jesus; no stern denunciations like 
those pronounced against the scribes 
and Pharisees. The language was re- 
markably mild and affectionate, and 
yet the effect of his discourse was not 
only to array against him the opposi- 
tion of the mass of his hearers, but to 
drive away those even, who, up to this 
time, had professed to be his disciples. 
So universal was the defection of his 
followers, in view of this wondrous dis- 
course, that our Lord turned to his dis- 
ciples, as though in momentary expec- 
tation that they also would leave him, 
and addressed to them the touching 
words, " Will ye also go away ?" There 
was on this occasion a remarkable ful- 
filment of his prophetic office, as one 
who was to purge his people from all 
dross (Mai. 3 : 2, 3), and purify unto 
himself a peculiar people zealous of 
good works (Tit. 2 : 14). Such has 



disciples, when they had heard 
this, said, This is a hard saying ; 
who can hear it ? 



t Ter. G6 ; Mat. 11 : 6. 



been from that time to this, and ever 
will be as long as the gospel is preach- 
ed on earth, the effect of spiritual dis- 
courses such as that uttered by our Lord 
on this occasion. 

60. Many therefore of his disciples. 
The mass of his hearers had gone away 
in unbelief. Even those who were pro- 
fessedly attached to him, and were in 
constant attendance upon his ministi'y, 
reckoning themselves among his disci- 
ples, were so scandalized at his dis- 
course, that many openly murmured at 
the absurdity, if not the impiety, of 
what he had said. A hard saying ; 
more literally, a harsh discourse, that 
is, one too absurd and offensive to be 
spoken or listened to. Who can hear 
it? i. e. who can stay and listen with 
approval, to such a harangue ? Some 
refer the pronoun to Jesus, who can 
hear him? See 10 : 20. The sense 
would remain unaltered. The expla- 
nation adopted by some, who can un- 
derstand it, as though its principal fault 
was its abstruseness, does not "furnish a 
sufficient reason for the manifest dis- 
gust with which they turned away from 
his teaching. The cause must be look- 
ed for in the emotional, rather than in 
the intellectual domain. It was not 
that they utterly failed to discern the 
meaning of his words, but because the 
truth which he disclosed was offensive 
to their carnal nature, that they so ab- 
ruptly turned their backs upon him and 
went away. What the actual ground 
of their offence at his doctrine was, has 
been a matter of much discussion. The 
majority of expositors, especially of the 
older ones, refer it to the absurdity of 
offering one's own flesh and blood as 
food and drink, and especially the im- 
piety of the declaration, that whoever 
partook of this unnatural food should 
have eternal life. But that his auditors 
should take his words in a literal sense 
we cannot well suppose, especially in 
view of the ground of the disputation 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



143 



61 When Jesus knew in him- 
self that his disciples murmured 

referred to in v. 52. Their want of 
spiritual discernment does not neces- 
sarily imply so low and sensuous a 
view as this. "We must also bear in 
mind, that these persons did not belong 
to the multitude who were compara- 
tively unenlightened as to the nature 
of our Lord's mission ; but they were 
disciples, who had been in regular at- 
tendance upon his ministry, and there- 
fore knew with what frequency .and 
earnestness he had disclaimed all secu- 
lar views and aims in the establishment 
of his kingdom on earth. For such 
persons to suppose that his discourse 
on the present occasion, had reference 
to a literal feeding upon his flesh and 
blood, is preposterous and incredible. 
Some of the more recent German com- 
mentators attribute the offence of 
these disciples to the declaration that 
the Messiah was to die (v. 51). But as 
Tholuck well remarks, this thought 
was not directly but mediately ex- 
pressed, and does not furnish an ade- 
quate explanation to the expression, 
" who can listen to him ? " 

It seems to me that the reply of 
Jesus (v. 62) throws much light upon 
the nature of the difficulty, which met 
these disciples and turned them away 
from following him. There was an as- 
sumption on his part of such power and 
dignity, in the declaration that his body 
and blood were the life of the world, 
that it seemed to them an arrogation 
of the prerogatives and attributes of 
Deity, and they left him, as one too 
impious in his claims to be listened to 
any longer. Jesus virtually replies 
that they ought not to be offended at 
this, for soon they would see the Son 
of man ascend up to the station of 
glory and blessedness which he had be- 
fore occupied. They were not there- 
fore to stumble at his present humble 
condition, but receive him as the true 
and only Saviour of the world. The 
ground of their offence was therefore 
the same as that which caused his re- 
jection by the whole nation; on the 
one hand, the assumption by him of a 



at it, he said unto them, Doth this 
offend you ? 

dignity so much more exalted than in 
their highest enthusiasm they had ever 
awarded to the Messiah ; and on the 
other, his low and obscure origin, 
which seemed so totally incompatible 
with his claims put forth in this dis- 
course, as being the life of the Avorld. 
The overthrow of all their hopes of 
temporal aggrandizement from the 
mission of Jesus (see v. 15), which 
this discourse effected, doubtless exert- 
ed no small influence in inducing them 
to forsake him at this time. But the 
main reason lay in their blindness as to 
his true character and dignity, result- 
ing from his low estate as Jesus of Naz- 
areth. 

61. When Jesus knew ; literally, Jesus 
knowing. The participial form denotes 
a knowledge, deep seated and perma- 
nent. In himself, i. e. by his divine 
omniscience. The words are opposed 
to information derived from an external 
source. Murmured. These disciples 
were restrained by the awe which his 
presence still inspired, from giving 
open utterance to their dislike of his 
discourse. They carried on their con- 
versation in low and inaudible tones, 
but yet their words could not be 
concealed from him, and his reply 
ought to have convinced them, that 
they were in the presence of One, who 
could read and understand the secret 
thoughts of the heart, as well as though 
audible expression had been given 
thereof in words. Doth this offend 
you? i. e. prove a stumbling-block to 
you. The pronoun refers to what he 
had declaimed, that in order to have life, 
they must eat his flesh and drink his 
blood. Stier remarks that "He well 
knew that it would be so with them, 
and nevertheless spoke precisely as he 
did." He tested their motives and 
strength of faith by this discourse, and 
thus sifted from the number of his 
professed followers, those who from 
self-interest or mistaken views of the 
nature of his mission, had for a season 
attached themselves to him as his dis- 
ciples. 



144 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



62 w What and if ye snail see 
the Son of man ascend up where 
he was before ? 

63 x It is the spirit that quick- 

w Ch. 8 : 13; Ma. 16: 19 ; Ac. 1 : 9; Ep. 4: 8. 



62. What and if; literally, if there- 
fore, or when ye shall see. The ellipsis 
here has been variously supplied. Stier 
and others, who find in these words of 
our Lord, a promise of the future 
removal of the offence, a subsequent 
better knowledge when his present 
earthly manifestation should be finally 
withdrawn, supply as a conclusion, 
" then will ye find my words concern- 
ing the eating my flesh not so hard as 
ye do now." This supposes the Greek 
to be susceptible of the translation, 
when ye shall see. Such also is substan- 
tially the exposition of Webster and 
Wilkinson, who give this as the sense ; 
when ye shall see, leaving it for his 
hearers mentally to supply, " then we 
shall believe." This explanation sup- 
poses that reference is had to the 
solution or removal of the objection 
advanced by the Jews in v. 42. But 
instead of supposing that their unbelief 
will be removed by the effulgence of 
his character, which shall beam forth 
at the time of his exaltation, is there 
not here by an argument a fortiori, a 
predicted increase of their unbelief and 
hardness of heart, under the higher 
manifestation which the Son will then 
make of his Messianic power? The 
Greek is if then, and not when. A 
solemn warning, and not a ground of 
encouragement is contained in this pas- 
sage : '■Doth this offend you? Think 
not then that you will be more inclined 
to believe in me, if you shall see (as 
you will) the Son of man ascend to the 
condition of exaltation, which he had 
before his advent on earth.' Or to 
express it still more simply : ' Drth this 
offend you'} (how much more) then (will 
you be offended), if you shall see (as 
you surely will) the Son of man ascend, 
&c. Thus it truly was. The passion, 
resurrection, and ascension of Christ, 
expressed under the general terms, 
Christ crucified, or the cross of Christ, 



eneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing : 
the words that I speak unto you, 
they are spirit, and they are life. 



aj2 Co. 



was the great stumbling-block of the 
Jews in the early days of the church 
(see 1 Cor. 1 : 23), and has continued 
to be so to the present day. An objec- 
tion has been made that the Jews did 
not witness his ascension. But what if 
they did not ? The testimony on which 
it rested was so abundant and incontro- 
vertible, that to reject it was as absurd 
and wicked, as to have doubted the 
evidence of their own eyes. There is 
then no necessity of seeking to avoid 
this objection, as does Alford, by 
averring the probability or at least 
possibility, that our Lord may have 
spoken this to some of the Twelve also, 
whose faith began to waver. Where he 
was before. This is a proof-text of the 
pre-existent nature of Christ. It is 
worthy of remark that this is the only 
place, where Jesus refers in so many 
words to his own ascension. Dr. Turner 
regards this question as a corrective of 
their attaching to our Lord's words a 
literal meaning, "by appealing to the 
manifest unreasonableness and self con- 
tradiction of literally eating his flesh 
and drinking his blood, after his body 
shall have been removed from thence 
to heaven." But while he evidently 
prefers regarding it as the solution of 
the difficulty which elicited the mur- 
murs of the people, he admits that it 
may also have this sense : " If the 
doctrine is now so distasteful to you, 
how abhorrent to your feelings and 
partial reasonings will it appear, after I 
shall have resumed my former condition 
in heaven ? " 

63. Our Lord now condescends to 
show, in what sense believers were to 
feed upon his flesh and blood. Here 
then begins the solution of the difficulty 
or misunderstanding of his words, re- 
sulting from taking them in a literal 
sense. It is the Spirit that quicJceneth. 
It has been a subject of much doubt 
and discussion, as to what is here meant 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



145 



64 But y there are some of you 
that believe not. For s Jesus 

y Yer. 36. 
z Ch. 2 : 24, 25 ; & 13 : 11. 

by the Spirit. Some take it in the sense 
of the Holy Spirit, as our translators 
seem to have done in writing it with 
the capital ; others, of a high spiritual- 
ity of view, as opposed to the carnal 
sense, in which many of them seem to 
have taken the preceding discourse ; 
and others maintain, that it teaches the 
spiritual sense of the discourse in oppo- 
sition to the literal sense. Between the 
last two views, there does not appear to 
be much difference. It seems to me, 
however, that the passage contains a 
comparison between the relation which 
the spirit or vital principle bears to the 
body of a man, and the spiritual or 
quickening power which the words of 
Christ exert upon the soul of the be- 
liever. The spirit of man is what quick- 
ens into life and activity the body. 
The flesh or body, without this pervad- 
ing principle of life and intelligence, 
would be inoperative and useless ; so the 
soul, otherwise dead to all spiritual 
action and influence, when interpene- 
trated by the life-giving truth of the 
gospel of Christ, is vivified and inspirited 
with new and clear views of all that per- 
tains to spiritual things. The applica- 
tion of this well-known and acknowl- 
edged principle, that the body is dead 
without the indwelling spirit, but ren- 
dered active and operative by its pres- 
ence, would be natural and obvious. If 
his words abode in his followers, being 
received by them in faith and love, 
they would be vivified thereby, aud re- 
ceive such new spiritual life and energy, 
that they would be freed from the carnal 
views which they took of his doctrine, 
and discern in his flesh and blood the 
true and only sustenance of the soul. 
This gives a sense which accords well 
with the context, both that which pre- 
cedes and follows, and offers no violence 
to the language of the original. Alforcl, 
after Stier, refers ray words to the ex- 
pressions my flesh and my blood. These 
were spirit and life, not flesh only ; liv- 
ing food, not carnal and perishable. 
Vol. III.— 7 



knew from the beginning who they 
were that believed not, and who 
should betray him. 

There is no objection to such a refer- 
ence, considered as a part of the dis- 
course of Jesus ; but my words, in their 
fullest sense, refers to the whole dis- 
course, and even to similar discourses 
pronounced on other occasions. Tliey 
are spirit and they are life. The literal 
translation would have been better, the 
ivords which I speak unto you are spirit 
and are life, i. e. they are the same in 
their quickening, energizing influence 
upon the soul, as the vital principle of 
life is to the body of man. The com- 
parison is exceedingly apt, concise, and 
forcible. These disciples who were 
about to go away from Jesus, were thus 
informed, that although his discourse 
seemed harsh and offensive to them, )'et 
it was the only source of spiritual life ; 
and unless received by them in faith 
and love, they would forever remain as 
spiritually dead, as the body from which 
the vital spirit had fled. 

G4. But there are some of you, &c. 
The general sense is that although there 
were such life and spirit in his words, 
yet there were some of his disciples 
who believed not, and this unbelief was 
the cause of their murmuring at his 
doctrine. For Jesus knew, &c. This 
is a parenthetical observation of the 
Evangelist, serving to show the ground 
of the judgment passed by Jesus in the 
preceding clause. It also prepares the 
way for the statement of the defection 
of some of his disciples, made in v. 66. 
From the beginning of his ministry ; or 
perhaps better, from the time when 
they severally attached themselves to 
his ministry. His unbelieving disciples 
are referred to in the words, who they 
were that believed not, and Judas Iscar- 
iot, in the following clause. The Greek 
negative employed in the expression 
believed not, is the one used to denote a 
general truth, applying to any one of 
the number who believed not. Had the 
other Greek negative been here employ- 
ed, as in the clause there are some of you 
that believe not, there would have been 



146 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32 



65 And he said, Therefore a said 
I unto you, that no man can come 
unto me, except it were given un- 
to him of my Father. 



an absolute reference to the unbelief 
of particular individuals. The sense will 
appear from the paraphrase, who those 
were not believing (whoever they might 
be), the fact of their not believing being 
assumed also in the preceding clause. 

65. And he said, &c. The Evangelist 
resumes the words of Jesus, which had 
been interrupted by the preceding par- 
enthesis. Therefore, i. e. in conse- 
quence of your unbelief. These dis- 
ciples supposed that they had come to 
Jesus by the true and only mode of 
approach; but he now shows them that 
it was in view of their want of genuine 
faith, that he had referred to the draw- 
ing of the Father as essential to the true 
and actual coming of any to him. Said 
Junto you, &c. See v. 44. Except it were 
given, &c. The language is varied from 
the declaration made in v. 44, but the 
sense remains the same. It were given 
unto him refers to the act of coming to 
Christ, which is not a mere external at- 
tachment to his person or cause, but a 
living belief in him as the Son of God 
and Saviour of men. Alford notices a 
parallelism between " the Father giv- 
eth me," in v. 35, and " were given 
unto him of my Father," both gifts 
being in the Father's power. The 
Father gives to the Son those whom his 
infinite grace selects as the objects of 
his saving love, and also imparts to 
them those influences by which they are 
drawn to Christ. 

66-71. The result of this remarkable 
discourse is here given. Those disci- 
ples, who had been actuated in following 
him by low and worldly motives, and 
who had no experimental acquaintance 
with the living faith here set forth 
under the strong and expressive lan- 
guage of feeding upon the body of 
Christ, left him, and so far as we know, 
never resumed their discipleship on the 
true basis here laid down by Christ. 
Stier thinks it possible, that some of 



66 * From that time many of 
his disciples went back, and walked 
no more with him. 



a Ver. 44, 45. 



o Ver. 60. 



them fell away from the beginning of 
faith. But in view of v. 64, and the 
next clause, and walked no more with 
him, as well as from such passages as 1 
John 2 : 19 ; Philip. 1 : 6, we cannot 
admit that these disciples had the least 
beginning of true evangelical faith in 
their heart. 

66. From that time. The ellipsis is 
not well supplied in our common ver- 
sion. The general sense would be bet- 
ter preserved by translating, on account 
of this. The same criticism may be 
made upon the translation from thence- 
forth, in 19 : 12. Went back, i. e. 
returned to their homes and occupa- 
tions, which they had temporarily left 
to attend upon the teachings of Jesus. 
The literal rendering is, went away in a 
backward direction, i. e. in the very 
opposite direction from that which 
they took in approaching Jesus. The 
idea intended to be conveyed is, that 
they did not turn aside, or swerve tem- 
porarily from their discipleship, but 
turned back and absolutely forsook 
him. They had assumed the name and 
attitude of disciples, hoping thereby to 
obtain some high position in the tem- 
poral kingdom which they supposed he 
was about to establish. But now their 
hopes of temporal aggrandizement 
being destroyed by the demand of 
Jesus upon their faith in him as a 
spiritual Redeemer, they separate them- 
selves from the band of disciples, thus 
evincing their want of sincerity in all 
their previous professions of love. 
Walked no more, &c. They accompa- 
nied him no longer as his professed dis- 
ciples. The verb literally signifies to 
walk about from place to place, and 
hence to be in attendance upon, or to 
accompany, as a disciple, his master. 
This clause is added to the preceding, 
to show that the defection was final 
and lasting. With him has that form 
in the original, which refers not to 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER YI. 



147 



67 Then said Jesus unto the 
twelve, "Will ye also go away ? 

mere companionship, but to a commu- 
nion of feeling and interest, as hi Matt. 
12 : 30. 

G7. Then said Jesus ; more literally, 
therefore said Jesus. The question was 
proposed in view of this defection of 
his professed followers. Unto the twelve. 
This is the first mention made by John 
of the twelve apostles. They had been 
called to the apostolic office, during the 
time which intervened between this 
and the preceding chapter (see N. on 
v. 1). The reference in John presup- 
poses, that the call and ordination of 
the Twelve had been known from the 
other Evangelists. Will ye also go 
away? A most tender and affecting 
question, when the time and circum- 
stances of its utterance are taken into 
consideration. Many of his professed 
disciples were leaving him, probably 
with expressions of scorn and contempt 
at the apparent absurdity and impiety 
of his doctrine. As one and another 
turned away from him, and he looked 
around upon the diminished numbers 
who remained, his soul seems to have 
been tilled with distress, and he turns 
to his chosen disciples, as though he 
feared that even their fidelity and love 
would be shaken, by his searching dis- 
course, and that they too would turn 
their back upon him. The form of 
interrogation in the original is one, 
which denotes fear and anxiety as to 
the answer. It is as though he had said, 
' You also will not go away. It cannot 
be possible that you my chosen apostles 
will leave me.' The pronoun ye, in the 
original is emphatic, and puts his apos- 
tles in strong and open contrast with 
the disciples who were then leaving 
him. A question here arises, whether 
our Lord proposed this question as one 
of trust or distrust, for both views are 
compatible with what has been said 
of its tender and touching character. 
Tholuck regards it as a question of 
trust, the negative in Greek presuppos- 
ing a negative reply. Webster and Wil- 
kinson interpret the question as implying 
a hope that the twelve did not mean to 



68 Then Simon Peter answered 
him, Lord, to whom shall we 

leave him. Stier rejects the idea that 
the question was an appeal of sorrow 
demanding consolation — 'ye, my own 
twelve, will not forsake me too, if it be 
your will, then leave me, ye are free to 
do so. I restrain you not' — just as God 
spoke in former times to Israel by 
Joshua (Josh. 24 : 15). My own view 
of the question is that it is one of sor- 
rowful anxiety, as to their fidelity ; in 
which the humanity of Jesus appears 
in strong and striking contrast with his 
divinity, which saw the end from the 
beginning, and knew the faithfulness 
and zeal, with which these beloved 
apostles, with the exception of Judas, 
would labor and suffer in his service. 
But as he was troubled in spirit at the 
prospect of Judas' treachery (13 : 21), 
so here his soul was affected at the 
desertion of his professed friends, and 
he turns to his disciples, not in a tone 
of boastful confidence in regard to 
their fidelity, but of affectionate solici- 
tude, lest they also should be swept 
away in the tide of unbelief. His 
tender and searching question may have 
been the very means which his love 
employed, to keep them from falling 
into the temptation, which at this time 
must have sorely beset them, when 
they in common with others, saw all 
their hopes of an earthly Messianic 
dominion destroyed, by the positive 
declarations, which he had made in 
regard to the spirituality of his king- 
dom and mission. The predominant 
idea of the question is then one of 
earnest solicitude ; as at a later period, 
when the power of temptation was 
remarkably strong, he bid them watch 
and pray that they entered not into 
temptation, adding that the spirit in- 
deed w r as willing (Mark, ready), but 
the flesh was weak (Matt. 26 : 41). At 
the same time, it must not be under- 
stood, in any of these instances where 
our Lord cautioned his disciples against 
falling away, that his omniscient eye 
lost sight of their future steadfast 
perseverance ; or that his everlasting 
purpose in calling them to be his 



148 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



go ? thou hast e the words of eter- 
nal life. 

69 d And we believe and are 
sure that thou art that Christ, 
the Son of the living God. 

c Ac. 5:20. 

chosen instruments in propagating his 
gospel, was in danger of being frus- 
trated by their defection. The purpose 
of God's sovereign grace neither inter- 
feres with nor overlooks the means, 
necessary to keep those who are em- 
braced in its provisions from falling 
away into open apostasy. The warn- 
ings, threatenings, promises,, hopes, 
encouragements, by which the believer 
is kept in the path of life, are as much 
the result of God's purpose, as his 
final perseverance and salvation which 
they were designed, as means, to 
secure. 

68. Peter answers to this question, 
with his usual promptness and frankness. 
To whom shall we go ? ' To what other 
teacher or guide shall we resort, for 
instruction in those things which per- 
tain to salvation ? ' Thou hast the zvords 
(see v. 63) of eternal life, i. e. thou 
teachest the way of eternal life. The 
language of Peter shows that the dis- 
course of Jesus had deeply penetrated 
his soul. He may not have fully un- 
derstood it, but he knew enough of its 
general drift to convince him, that it 
was a revelation of the true and only 
way of salvation from sin and death. 

69. And we (whatever others may 
think) believe and are sure. Both these 
verbs are in the perfect tense, repre- 
senting full and completed action : we 
have believed (i. e. are fully possessed 
of the belief), and have known, i. e. 
have reached the full knowledge and 
are possessed of it. The form of 
speech made use of is therefore expres- 
sive of the highest confidence in the 
declaration here made. Tholuck re- 
marks that faith here stands before 
knowing, as in 1-7:8; the reverse is 
the case in 10: 38 ; 1 John 4 : 16, but 
chronologically the two points are not 
to be sundered from one another. That 
Christ, or the Christ, i. e. the true Mes- 



70 Jesus answered them, e Have 
not I chosen you twelve, and / one 
of you is a devil ? 

<2 Mat 16:16; Ma. 8:29; Lu. 9:20; ch. 1:49; 
«Lu.6: 13. 
/Ch. 13:27. 



siah._ The Son of the living God (see 
v. 5*7). See N. on Matt. 16: 16, where 
Peter made open confession of the 
same truth, at a time when the faith 
of the apostles was put to the severest 
test. Alford and Tholuck adopt the 
reading, the holy One of God; but Ben- 
gel shows clearly that the word Son, is 
requisite to correspond to my Father 
in v. 65. Stier and Olshausen would 
go still further, and reject as spurious 
the Christ, the Son, making the passage 
read simply thou art the holy One, &c. 
There seems to be no valid reason 
from the passage itself or the MS. au- 
thority, against the reading adopted in 
our common version. 

70. The reply of our Lord to Peter's 
confession, is unlike that which he 
made on the subsequent occasion (Matt. 
16 : 17-19), being indicative of appre- 
hended treachery and desertion, and 
referring not so much to Peter's stead- 
fast adherence to his cause, as by way 
of contrast to Judas who was to betray 
him. The sentiment expanded is this : 
' thou hast indeed made a true confes- 
sion, in which I know that you all 
agree, and yet, not all, for although I 
have chosen you Twelve to be my apos- 
tles, yet I know that one of you is a 
devil and not my true follower.' Clio- 
sen refers here to the external call, 
which had been made to them by Je- 
sus. See Mark 3:13, 14 ; Luke 6:13. 
Alford says that "the selection of the 
Twelve by Jesus, was in consequence 
of the giving of them to him by the 
Father, so that his selecting and the 
Father's giving and drawing do not ex- 
clude final falling away." So Stier re- 
marks that "there is in the divine love, 
without prejudice to its prescience, an 
election of the lost." He acknowledges 
that it is " a mystery, not belonging to 
strict exegesis, and lying further back, 
even in Satan, who in his very creation 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VI. 



149 



was chosen." But see v. 39, where it is 
expressly said, that not one of those 
given to" the Son by the Father shall be 
lost, which of course excludes Judas 
and all other apostates from the num- 
ber of the elect. See also 10 : 1*7-29, 
where the same sentiment is enforced 
under the imagery of sheep safe in the 
protecting love of the good Shepherd. 
In 13: 18 (on which see Note), Judas 
is expi'essly excluded from the number 
of the chosen ; for when our Lord said 
" I speak not of you all : I know whom 
I have chosen," no one can suppose the 
choice to the apostleship to be the one 
intended, but that eternal choice to 
everlasting life, made in the covenant 
of redemption between the Father and 
Son. Stier, Tholuck, and Alford, refer 
in proof of their exposition to 17 : 0. 
But there is no evidence that Judas is 
included in the number of those who 
are there referred to as having been 
given to Christ. Indeed the passage 
in its connection, furnishes abundant 
proof to the very contrary. When our 
Lord's intercessory prayer was offered, 
he had gone out from them, on his 
dark and traitorous errand ; and it 
would be surpassingly strange, if that 
" son of perdition " who was then on his 
way to betray his Lord, should be re- 
ferred to, and as Stier says, " enume- 
rated among those who were given by 
the Father." If he was one of those 
who had been drawn to Christ by the 
Father, and notwithstanding this, was 
given up to the devil, as a son of per- 
dition, to betray his Lord and Master, 
to die by his own hand and go to his 
own place, what foundation has the 
believer to rest upon, in the unchang- 
ing love and purpose of God, and 
what confidence or hope can he 
draw from such texts as v. 39 ; 10 : 27- 
29 ; 17 : 6, and others of like import ? 
If Judas was embraced in "the Father's 
giving and drawing," and yet irrecover- 
ably fell away, what hope has the be- 
liever that such may not be his disas- 
trous end ? But if to his own watch- 
ful and prayerful efforts, is added the 
promise of God's faithfulness and un- 
changing love, then he can adopt the 
language of Paul (Rom. 8 : 31-39), and 



lean with confidence on the arm of in- 
finite grace. 

The choice then spoken of here, is 
not the eternal choice embraced in the 
covenant between the Father and the 
Son, but as above said, the external 
call made by Jesus to the Twelve. 
There were many present, who were 
as much the subjects of the Father's 
drawing unto the Son (v. 44), as the 
apostles themselves ; but the Twelve 
only had been selected to the apostle- 
ship. Hence have not I chosen you 
twelve, cannot be referred to the apos- 
tles apart from the other disciples, ex- 
cept in regard to this special call to 
their apostolic office. Is is truly won- 
derful that any expositors should over- 
look so palpable a distinction, unless in 
their eagerness to find scriptural argu- 
ments against the doctrine of the final 
perseverance of saints. And (yet) one 
of you is a devil. As the Greek word 
here used is the one employed to de- 
note the arch adversary or Satan, it 
has been a matter of some discussion in 
what sense it is here to be taken, whe- 
ther as devil or opposcr. Olshausen at 
first took the latter view, but in a later 
edition (the one edited by Prof. Ken- 
drick), he changes his opinion and re- 
marks, "I am now inclined to under- 
stand .the expression as meaning, one 
among you is (not a devilbut) the devil; 
i. e. what the devil is among the chil- 
dren of God, that is this person among 
you. Devil stands here as a familiar 
proper name without the article." So 
Stier remarks : " As we understand our 
Lord's thoughts, he does not mean 
merely what otherwise would be child 
or son of the devil (for this would be too 
slight and general for application to Ju- 
das, who was the guide and head of 
those who took Jesus), nor does he 
simply place him in parallel with any 
individual demon, but — one among you 
is the Satan or devil in relation to one, 
that is, his elect instrument, one who has 
fallen, through a devilish spirit, into 
the ministry and as it were the repre- 
sentation of the Devil.' 1 '' This seems to 
be the true sense of the passage, al- 
though Luther, Grotius, De Wette, Ne- 
ander, Webster and Wilkinson, give it 



150 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 82. 



71 He spake of Judas Iscariot 
the son of Simon : for he it was 
that should betray him, being 
one of the twelve. 

a Gh. 5 : 16, 18. 

the softer, or as Tholuck says, the more 
languid sense of opposer, adversary, one 
who is possessed with the heart of an 
enemy. The Syriac version has it, one 
of you is Satan, and there can be no 
doubt, that our Lord in the Syro-chal- 
daic, the vernacular language of Pales- 
tine, expressed himself in this way. In 
order to put his chosen apostles on 
their guard against defection, and star- 
tle Judas himself into repentance — for 
we cannot suppose that our Lord did 
not earnestly desire his conversion and 
salvation, as well as that of the others 
whom he had chosen to be his follow- 
ers — he used the strongest expression 
to denote, that the person designated 
was fully possessed with the spirit of 
the devil and ready to do his bidding. 
See Acts 13:10. Peter was denomi- 
nated Satan (Matt. 1G : 23). But there 
was this marked and radical difference 
between him and Judas, that in his 
friendly interference with the great 
purpose of God's redemptive love in the 
death of his Son (see K on Matt. 1G: 
23), he was unconsciously and tempo- 
rally doing the service of Satan ; 
whereas Judas was under the perma- 
nent influence of the devil, and in the 
performance of the great act of his 
wicked betrayal, was fully possessed 
by him. 

71. He spake of Judas Iscariot (see 
N. on Matt. 10 : 4). Jesus had given 
so many marks of superhuman knowl- 
edge, that John could not but have re- 
ferred what was here said to the pre- 
diction of Judas' treachery, even if he 
had not been taught of the Spirit to re- 
cord the fact. Tlie "son of Simon. John 
is the only Evangelist who gives the 
name of Judas' father. Sec 12:4; 13 : 
2. That should betray him. Some ex- 
positors refer this to the divine pur- 
pose ; others, among whom is Dod- 
dridge, suppose the import to be that 



CHAPTER VII. 

AFTER these things Jesus 
walked in Galilee : for he 
would not walk in Jewry, ° be- 
cause the Jews sought to kill 
him. 



even at this time Judas had thoughts 
of betraying his Lord. But the origi- 
nal clearly denotes a simple future, 
similar to the use of the word in 1 : 39 ; 
11 : 51. The English auxiliary should, 
implies predetermination or a necessary 
result, and therefore the more literal 
translation was about (or soon) to betray 
him, would have been preferable. 

CHAPTER VII. 

1. After these things, i. e. after the 
events detailed in the preceding chap- 
ter. Alford however thinks that refer- 
ence is had to what took place as re- 
ported in Chap. V., the miraculous feed- 
ing of the five thousand and the dis- 
course at Capernaum being events which 
took place in the interval while he was 
in Galilee. But Dr. Robinson well re- 
marks, that 7 : 1 contains a reason why 
Jesus did not go up at this time to the 
passover mentioned in 6 : 4, and which 
was the third in his ministry. This es- 
tablishes a close connection between 
the events of the preceding chapter, 
which took place about the time of the 
passover, and the declaration here 
made that Jesus continued his ministry 
in Galilee, and did not go up with the 
multitude to Jerusalem on account of 
the hostility of the Jews. He walked 
in Galilee (i. e. remained in Galilee in 
the active duties of his ministry), and 
would not walk (literally, tvas univilling 
to walk, chose not to walk) in Jewry, i.e. 
Judea. The idea in the last member 
is simply, that he did not go up, ac- 
cording to his usual custom, to keep 
the passover. Because the Jews sought, 
&c. The imperfect tense of the verb 
denotes the settled determination to ef- 
fect his death, and thus put an end to 
his denunciations against their formal- 
ism and hypocrisy. 

2-10. Jesus goes up to the feast 
of tabernacles and takes his final 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VII. 



151 



2 h Now the Jews' feast of taber- 
nacles was at hand. 

3 c His brethren therefore said 



&Le. 23: 34. 
c Mat. 12 : 46 ; Ma. 3 : 31 



Ac. 1 : 14. 



departure FROM Galilee. John here 
passes over an interval of six months, 
during which time, Jesus goes into 
the coasts of Tyre and Sidon (Matt. 
15: 21-28); feeds the Four Thousand at 
Decapolis (Matt. 15:29-38); reproves 
the Pharisees for demanding a sign 
(Matt. 16:1-4); heals the blind man 
at Bethsaida (Mark 8 : 22-2G) ; departs 
into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi 
(Matt. 16 : 13-20); is transfigured (Matt. 
17 : 1-13); heals a demoniac (Matt. 17 : 
14-21) ; foretells again his own death 
(Matt 17 : 22. 23) ; exhorts to brotherly 
love (Matt. 18:1-35); instructs and 
sends forth the Seventy (Luke 10 : 1- 
16). It will therefore be seen, that 
the feeding of the Five Thousand, his 
miraculous walking upon the sea, and 
his discourse at Capernaum, are the 
only events related by John, during a 
period of about eighteen months of his 
ministry. Strauss, with his usual tact 
and readiness to find some flaw in the 
sacred narrative, seizes upon this as 
proof, that John was acquainted with 
Judea only as the theatre of our Lord's 
ministry ; while Matthew, on the other 
hand, knew only of Galilee as the place 
of his labors. But not only is there no 
evidence of the truth of this, but a su- 
perabundance of proof to the contrary. 
All the occurrences of Chap. VI. took 
place in Galilee, and it is expressly stat- 
ed in v. 1, that he continued to labor 
in Galilee, through fear of the Jews 
who were seeking to kill him. 

2. Feast of tabernacles. This was 
the third great annual festival of the 
Jews. It began in the 15th day of the 
seventh month Tisri, commencing with 
the new moon in our month October, 
and continued for eight days. It Avas 
designed, in part at least, to commemo- 
rate the wanderings of the children of 
Israel in the wilderness. Upon the 
roofs of the houses and in the streets, 
booths of green boughs were erected, 



unto him, Depart hence, and go 
into Judea, that thy disciples 
also may see the works that thou 
doest. 



in which the people dwelt for seven 
days. It was also intended as a festival 
of thanksgiving for the ingathering of 
the harvest, and hence it was a season 
of rejoicing and feasting. The first 
! and eighth days were sabbaths to the 
Lord, and the eighth day, especially, was 
called the last great day of the feast 
(see v. 37). Josephus (Antiq. VIII. 4, 
§ 1) says that this was kept as the most 
holy and eminent of the festivals. Plu- 
tarch also speaks of it, as the greatest 
and most perfect of Jewish feasts. It 
was at this festival that Solomon's 
temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:2; 
2 Chron. 7 : 9, 10). The devotion of 
the church to the worship and service 
of God, in the time of its future glory 
and prosperity, is set forth by Zecha- 
riah (14: 16-19), under the imagery of 
a general gathering from all parts of 
the earth to Jerusalem, to keep the 
feast of tabernacles. This shows how 
great and holy a feast was this in the 
estimation of the Jews. It also shows, 
that, while all the other Jewish feasts 
have been superseded by the fulfilment 
in the Christian dispensation of that in 
regard to which they were mere types, 
the festival of Tabernacles or Booths, 
in its grand elemental idea of thanks- 
giving for past deliverances and mercies, 
will continue to be observed, in a form 
suited to the spirituality of Christian 
worship, by God's people in all coming 
time. The Thanksgiving festival, which 
has now become with us a national re- 
ligious institution, is an exemplification 
of what, under some modifications to 
suit the habits of different peoples, will 
become universally prevalent through- 
out the world. 

3. His brethren, i. e. his natural 
brethren. See Ns. on Matt. 1 : 25 ; 13 : 
55. Tholuck thinks that these brethren 
who are here introduced to us as unbe- 
lieving, were the same as those referred 
to in Acts 1 : 14. This is probably so ; 



152 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



4 For there is no man that 
doeth any thing in secret, and he 
himself seeketh to be known 



and unless we absurdly suppose that 
our Lord had two sets of relatives, one 
hostile, the other friendly to him, we 
may safely infer that the persons here 
referred to, were not without some 
germ of faith, although they had no 
intelligent belief in him as a spiritual 
Messiah. Tholuck cites in confirmation 
of this, what Schaf says in regard to the 
internal development of James the son 
of Alpheus, (?) that " in accordance with 
a piety of a strictly Old Testament 
character, he clung to a conception 
of the Messiah, with which the man- 
ner of Christ's appearing was in con- 
flict. He expected him to wield a 
power in civil matters ; to make a bril- 
liant display of himself in the central 
city of the theocracy." So in regard 
to these brethren, Tholuck proceeds to 
say, " that our Lord's works had been 
done in an extreme corner of Galilee, 
awakened distrust in their character; 
a distrust to which the if (v. 4) has refer- 
ence, although it does not necessarily 
involve a doubt of the mere fact of 
their having been done." But admit- 
ting that these brethren of Jesus were 
not rank and open unbelievers in him, 
it must be nevertheless acknowledged 
that they were far from entertaining just 
views of the nature of his mission, and 
were actuated by very low and un- 
worthy motives in urging him to make 
a public avowal of his claims to the 
Messiahship, as here related. Therefore, 
i. e. in consequence of the near ap- 
proach. Depart hence, &c. There is 
an abruptness of expression here, which 
accords well with the impatience of 
these persons, in regard to the tardi- 
ness with which, in their estimation, Je- 
sus put forth his claims to being publicly 
acknowledged as the Messiah. Hence 
from this obscure corner of Galilee. 
Judea, where the principal men of the 
nation reside, and where is the appro- 
priate seat of the Messianic rule. Here 
we get an insight into the ambitious 
views of these brethren, who seeing 
his miracles and having; the same mis- 



openly. If thou do these things, 
shew thyself to the world. 



taken notions of his mission, which were 
common to the whole nation, wished him 
to hasten matters and proceed at once to 
Jerusalem, to make a public proclama- 
tion of his Messiahship. It must be 
remembered that he had now been ab- 
sent from Jerusalem about a year and 
a half; and his brethren seeing him 
making no preparations to attend this 
approaching feast of tabernacles, urge 
upon him with impatience, if not with 
ill-temper, the propriety of once more 
showing himself in the metropolis of 
the nation, and publicly asserting his 
claims. That thy disciples, such as re- 
sided in Judea, or had already gone up 
to keep the feast. Some find an allu- 
sion here to the fact of his having been 
deserted by so many of his disciples 
(see 6 : 66). But that defection took 
place six months previous to this, and 
could hardly have entered as an ele- 
ment into this remark of his brethren. 
I am disposed to think that they used 
this term in a very general sense, of 
the Jews at large, wishing, however, to 
conceal their ambitious views under the 
plausible cloak of recommending him 
to proceed to Jerusalem, in order to 
confirm his disciples from whom he had 
been so long absent. Prof. Crosby re- 
marks that " Jesus must have had 
many disciples in Judea, made such at 
his various visits to Jerusalem at the 
times of the feasts." 

4. They base their advice on a com- 
mon and well-acknowledged principle, 
that any one who Avishes to come into 
public repute, will take the steps neces- 
sary to make known his claims to public 
consideration. In thus assuming that 
Jesus was seeking public notoriety and 
popularity, they grossly misrepresented 
him. Indeed their whole address, if 
not insolent, was yet highly impertinent 
and unbecoming, and richly merited 
the calm severity with which our Lord 
replied to it. The grammatical struc- 
ture of this verse is somewhat obscure. 
The best solution is to regard the 
clauses as coordinate, the general idea 



A, D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VII. 



153 



5 For d neither did his brethren 
believe in him. 

being, that there is no one so void of 
understanding, as to studiously conceal 
his acts, and yet expect that they will 
bring him into public notice. The two 
unconnected acts are combined, as 
Winer says, in parallelism, the idea being 
rendered prominent thereby, that no- 
body does both at the same time. In a 
sentence constructed like this, the 
Greeks use the conjunction translated 
and, in the sense of while, or make the 
second verb a participle. The substitu- 
tion of the form while he himself, would 
remove all obscurity from the passage. 
The pronoun he himself, opposes the per- 
sonality of the subject of the verbal ex- 
pression seeketh to be known, to the thing 
done in secret. The word rendered 
openly, literally signifies, freespokcnness, 
frankness of speech, demeanor, or ac- 
tion, and hence obtains its adverbial use, 
frankly, boldly, openly, without conceal- 
ment. It will be seen, therefore, that in 
the use of this word there is a covert 
charge, that Jesus had not manifested 
that bold and open frankness, which 
might have been expected from one who 
was laying claim to the high office ol'Mes- 
siahship. Luther says that the word 
openly, corresponds to the German ex- 
pression on the field. Our Lord is charged 
with not having taken the open field of 
action, but to have practised undue con- 
cealment of himself and purposes, in the 
more retired portions of Galilee. If 
thou doest, &c. This does not, as Tholuck 
remarks, necessarily involve a doubt of 
the fact that Jesus had done these won- 
derful works. It is hypothetically put 
as the condition, why Jesus should 
make a more open and undisguised 
manifestation of himself. If thou doest 
these things (of which we have no 
doubt), show thyself to the v.orld; i. e. 
go forth to the metropolis of the nation, 
and there publicly claim the honors and 
prerogatives of your Messiahship. 

5. This verse fully discloses the mo- 
tives of these brethren of Jesus. The 
question here arises, which has in part 
been discussed in my comments on v. 
3, whether the unbelief here spoken of, 
Vol. III.— 7* 



6 Then Jesus said unto them, 
d Ma. 3: 21 



was absolute and complete, or relative 
and partial ; whether these kinsmen of 
Jesus were to be ranked as his enemies, 
like the scribes and Pharisees, or, while 
they believed in him as an extraordi- 
nary personage sent of God, were so 
deficient in a true apprehension of the 
spirituality of his mission, that they 
might be well said to be without faith 
in him. That they did not look upon 
Jesus as an impostor, like the chief 
priests and rulers, is placed beyond 
doubt by the fact here stated, that they 
wished him to display his wonderful 
powers in the presence of the chief 
men of the nation. They would not 
have been so bereft of all prudence, as 
to have advised him to this, unless fully 
confident that his miraculous powei^s 
could stand the test of the most search- 
ing inquisition. Their unbelief must be 
referred, therefore, to their spiritual 
dulness of comprehension in regard to 
the true object of his mission ; and 
this parenthetic clause is inserted to 
show why it was that they were so ur- 
gent for him to go up to Jerusalem, and 
openly proclaim his Messiahship — be- 
cause not recognizing in him a spiritual 
Messiah, they hoped for temporal power 
and aggrandizement under his reign. 
Entertaining such views of the Messi- 
anic office of Jesus, low and erroneous 
indeed, yet far different from the cold 
and malignant unbelief of the Jewish 
priests and rulers, we are not surprised 
at finding, some six months from this 
time, these same brethren of our Lord 
(A.cts 1 : 14) — for we cannot, as above 
stated, believe that two kinds of per- 
sons are referred to — continuing with 
the apostles " with one accord in prayer 
and supplication," waiting for the prom- 
ised descent of the Holy Ghost, hav- 
ing been together with others, enlight- 
ened as to the true object of our Lord's 
mission, by the wondrous events of his 
crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. 
Such is Doddridge's view, so far as we 
may gather from his note on Acts 1 : 
14. For neither did his brethren believe 
in him, would be better and more liter- 



154 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



e My time is not yet come : but 
your time is alway ready. 

7 ; The world cannot hate you ; 
but rnc it hateth, 9 because I tes- 



e Ch. 2:4; & 
/Ch. 15:19. 



: 20 ; vs. 8, 30. 
a Ch. 3:19. 



ally translated, for his brethren also (as 
well as others) did not believe, &c. 
Although so intimately related to him, 
yet their views were selfish and world- 
ly as ethers, who had less opportu- 
nity to study and learn his real char- 
acter. The argument here is worth 
nothing, unless we take brethren to de- 
note the near relationship which we 
understand by this term. This verse is 
therefore not without good reason ad- 
duced, as proof that Mary had other 
children by Joseph, and that these 
were our Lord's natural brethren. 

6. My time (literally, the time, viz. 
mine), not as some commentators have 
thought, the time of his sufferings and 
death, but of his going up to the feast. 
There may be implied also a reference 
to the time, when he should publicly 
manifest himself as his brethren wished, 
not however as a temporal, but a spirit- 
ual Messiah. He did not make this 
public manifestation until the next 
great festival, the passover, thus evinc- 
ing that his time was not theirs, and 
that he was actuated by other consider- 
ations, than those which prompted 
them to make this request. Stier with 
Bengel is disposed to refer my time is 
not yet full come, to the time of going 
up to the feast of tabernacles, and the 
repetition of these words in v. 8, to his 
sufferings and death. But it is better 
to take both in the same sense. Your 
time, &c. They could go up in safe- 
ty, but his path was beset with 
perils. Acting with a view only to 
their own interests, they were not at all 
restricted in their movements ; and 
hence the time was always ready for 
them, which would conduce to their 
selfish ends. But he had a higher work 
to accomplish, and one in which he was 
to be obedient to the will of his Father, 
both as to the manner and time of its 
performance. 



tify of it, that the works thereof 
are evil. 

8 G-o ye up unto this feast : T 
go not up yet unto this feast ; 
h for my time is not yet full come. 

h Ch. 8 : 30 ; ver. 6. 



1. This verse contains the reason 
why his brethren could go up at any 
time and in safety to the feast, while 
his attendance exposed him to such 
peril. They had never borne testimony 
against the sins of the world, and 
therefore had no reason to fear its 
hostility, but his reproof had exposed 
him to its most deadly hatred. The 
world, i. e. the multitude, the people at 
large, those to whom his brethren in v. 
4, wished him to show himself. Cannot. 
A moral inability, or that which is not 
in accordance with the course of things. 
It does not imply that mutual hatred 
may not exist among the enemies of 
Christ, but that it is far different in 
kind and intensity, from that which 
they entertain towards Christ and his 
followers. The position of you and me 
in the original, places these pronouns 
in strong contrast. It hateth. The 
present tense is here used of a general 
or universal truth. Because 1 testify of 
it. " Christ in words of reproof places 
himself over against the world." Tho- 
luck. That the works thereof are evil, 
shows in what our Lord's testimony 
against the world consisted. Works 
here denote those acts of men, which 
may be referred to the standard of 
God's law, as being right or wrong. 

8. Go ye up without waiting for me. 
I go not up yet. The word translated 
yet, is not found in several of the oldest 
and most authoritative copies, and was 
perhaps added to shield our Lord from 
the charge of inconstancy of purpose, 
if not untruthfulness, in going up to the 
feast, after positively saying that he 
should not go up. Of two conflicting 
readings, other things being equal, the 
more concise form is to be preferred, 
and the absence of yet does not impugn 
our Lord's truthfulness or constancy of 
purpose, inasmuch as the present tense 
of the verb gives the sense : lam not 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VII. 



155 



9 "When he had said these 
words unto them, he abode still 
in Galilee. 

10 But when his brethren were 
gone up, then went he also up 



going (at present) up to the feast. Such 
is Chrysostom, Liicke, and Olshausen's 
explanation of the passage. Stier says 
that " for the brethren it was perfectly 
true, that He was not going to set forth 
with them, and therefore in the way 
which they desired ; what He designed 
to do afterwards was a matter for his 
own thoughts alone." Unto this feast. 
The presence of this has troubled com- 
mentators not a little, because it seems 
to add more definiteness and emphasis 
to the denial in the reply. As usual 
therefore in such cases, its genuineness 
has been disputed. But it furnishes no 
serious difficulty. The answer of our 
Lord is brief, and much significance is 
to be given to every word. The pro- 
noun this, contrasts our Lord's conduct 
on the present occasion, with his 
previous custom of going up to Jeru- 
salem at the beginning of the feasts. 
To this feast, he declares his purpose 
not to go up yet, because his time 
was not yet full come, i. e. was not fully 
completed. He was to stay in Galilee 
until the very time in which, according 
to his Father's will, he was to leave for 
the important duties and trials which 
awaited him in Judea. 

9-10. He abode ; literally, remained. 
He gave them no indications of his 
'intention to go up to the feast, and 
hence they departed under the impres- 
sion that he had determined to remain 
behind. He did not wish to journey 
with them, possessed as they were of 
such unbelief and misapprehension of 
the nature of his mission, and disposed 
to annoy him with such untimely re- 
marks, as those recorded in vs. 3, 4. 
About to enter as he was upon such an 
eventful period of his ministry, he 
probably desired the time of his journey 
for uninterrupted meditation and com- 
munion with his Father. Were gone up, 
i. e. ha.d so fully started on their journey, 



unto the feast, not openly, but as 
it were in secret. 

1 1 Then ' the Jews sought him 
at the feast 
he? 

iCh. 11:56 



and said, Where is 



as to have gone from the place. Not 
openly, i. e. with the great company or 
caravan, among whom were his breth- 
ren. But as it were in secret, i. e. as he 
would go up, if his design was to 
journey with the greatest privacy. "In 
as quiet and private a manner as possi- 
ble ; in a manner, secretly." Webster 
and Wilkinson. Our Lord was probably 
accompanied by the Twelve, who from 
the time they were specially chosen to 
the apostleship, seem never to have left 
him, except on the mission referred to 
in Matt. 10 : 5. 

11-53. Jesus teaches publicly at 
the Feast op Tabernacles. Jerusalem. 
The connection between vs. 10th and 
11th, in this portion of John, is found 
in Luke 9 : 51-5G ; 17 : 11-19. This 
conversation of our Lord with the Jews 
at the feast of tabernacles, may be 
regarded as one continuous discourse, 
although broken up by interruptions, 
and modified to meet the cavils and 
objections of his enemies. 

11. The J&ivs, i. e. the priests and 
rulers, referred to in John in almost 
every instance of its recurrence, espe- 
cially in these great conversations 
which took place with the Jews in the 
temple, during these closing days of 
our Lord's ministry. Some commen- 
tators, as Tholuck and Olshausen, refer 
the term here to the populace, who 
were desirous to see Jesus and listen to 
his instructions. But the people are 
referred to in the next verse, where 
their murmurings and discussions were 
not so much in regard to the question 
whether or no he was at that time in 
Jerusalem, as to his true character as 
a religious teacher. The idea of hostil- 
ity to Jesus is implied in the words the 
Jews sought him ; whereas in v. 12, the 
people are represented as discussing 
his claims to be considered a true 
prophet. Much light is thrown upon 



156 



JOHN. 



[A, D. 



12 And * -there was much mur- 
muring among the people con- 
cerning him : for l some said, He 

£Ch. 9:16; &10:19. 



this subject by v. 1, which shows the 
deadly malice which had from that 
time onward taken possession of the 
mind of bis enemies. And said. The 
tense indicates that this inquiry was one 
of general and frequent occurrence. 
Where is he ? They were quite confi- 
dent that he would not absent himself 
from several feasts in succession, and 
therefore the inquiry was not, has he 
come up to the feast? but, where is he? 
Where has he concealed himself? The 
pronoun he, is not here to be pressed 
to its contemptuous use, but as emphat- 
ically designating an absent person who 
was well known. 

12. TJiere was much murmuring, &c. 
This shows the divided state of public 
opinion respecting him, and how uni- 
versally he was the predominant theme 
of conversation. On the word murmur- 
ing, see N. on Matt. 20 : 11. The word 
much, refers to the widely spread 
discussions and controversies, to which 
his wonderful claims had given rise. 
Among the people, i. e. the common 
people in contradistinction from the 
rulers and priests referred to in v. 11. 
There is a strong antithesis between the 
vei'ses. The Jewish priests and rulers 
were seeking him with malicious intent ; 
but the common people were engaged 
in earnest discussion, as to his claim 
to be regarded a true prophet of God. 
All were however in a state of intense 
excitement, on account of the extraor- 
dinary person who was expected to be 
present at the feast. There seems to 
have been, both among his enemies and 
friends, an expectation that he would 
make a more open and public manifes- 
tation of himself, than he had done oa 
any previous visit to Jerusalem, and 
hence the desire of the former class 
to know all about his place of abode 
and movements, in order to oppose 
and crush him. For some said. The 
connective for, is not in the original. 
The clauses some said and others said, 



is a good man : others said, Nay ; 
but he deceiveth the people. 
13 Howbeit no man spake 

l Mat. 21 : 4G ; Lu. 7 : 1G ; cli. 6 : 14 ; yer. 40. 

are in explanatory apposition with the 
words much murmuring, denoting the 
manner in which their conflicting senti- 
ments found expression. A good man. 
If his claims were false and pretentious, 
he could be no other than a bad man. 
The declaration that he was a good 
man, was therefore equivalent to saying, 
that he was what he claimed to be — the 
Son of God. But so overawed were 
they, by the great names which were 
arrayed against Jesus, that they dared 
not express this opinion openly and in 
plain terms. They substituted, there- 
fore, the less offensive declaration of 
their belief in him as a good man. But 
no such fear or motives of prudence 
restrained their opponents from openly 
and flatly charging him with being a 
deceiver, that is, of pretending to be 
what he was not. This was a denial of 
his Messiahship, and far in advance of 
a simple denial of what the friends of 
Jesus had just asserted of him. From 
this we see how overshadowing was 
the influence of the Jewish priests and 
rulers, who were arrayed in such deadly 
hostility against Jesus. This is brought 
out more clearly in the next verse. 
Nay (he is not a good man) but he 
deceiveth the people. The parties refer- 
red to here as entertaining an opinion 
of Jesus so diametrically opposite, are 
thought by some to refer to the Galile- 
an disciples on the one hand, and the 
unbelieving Jews on the other. But it 
would be very strange, if there were 
not many dwellers in Jerusalem and its 
vicinity, who believed in him as a true 
prophet, so that among the citizens of 
the metropolis itself, such a division of 
sentiment as is here recorded might 
have taken place. The people. This 
expression shows that the persons 
speaking espoused the side of the ru- 
lers, and talked of the populace as a 
distinct class from themselves. 

13. Howbeit, i. e. notwithstanding 
there were those among the people who 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER TIL 



157 



openly of him ■ for fear of the 
Jews. 

1-1 Xow about the midst of the 

m Ch. 9 : 22 ; & 12 : 42 ; & 19 : 35. 
n Mat. 13 : 54 ; Ma. 6 : 2 ; Lu. 4: 22 ; Ac. 2 : 7. 

believed in him. Xo man of the number 
of believers. They were obliged to ex- 
press themselves with great caution and 
reserve. But this was not true of those 
who regarded him as a deceiver, for they 
boldly and openly denounced him as an 
impostor. For fear of the Jews. The 
Sanhedrim is most unquestionably re- 
ferred to here, and this is proof that 
the expression in v. 11, in like manner 
is to be referred to that body. At the 
time here spoken of, the people stood 
in awe of the rulers and chief priests ; 
but the reverse of this was true in the 
closing days of our Lord's ministry, 
the Sanhedrim not daring to lay hands 
on Jesus, through fear of the people. 
See Matt. 21 :46 ; Mark 12:12; Luke 
20 : 19. 

14. What is recorded in the preced- 
ing verses took place at the commence- 
ment of the feast. About the third or 
fourth day of the festival, our Lord 
having come to Jerusalem, made his 
appearance in the temple, and there 
taught publicly for the first time in his 
ministry. He had defended himself 
previously from the charge of having 
violated the sabbath (see 5 : 17—47), 
and in so doing testified of himself as 
being the Son of God, into whose hands 
all judgment had been committed ; but 
now, as one who has already given 
proof that he is a divinely commis- 
sioned teacher, he proceeds to the 
temple and publicly instructs the people 
who resort to him. Olshausen conjec- 
tures that the discourse here referred 
to, was not pronounced in the open air 
in the front or fore court, but in the 
synagogue situated in the court of the 
women. The tense of the verb taught, 
is the imperfect, denoting habitual or 
continued instruction. He taught from 
the day of his public appearance until 
the last and great day of the feast, 
when he crowned his discourses by that 
sublime utterance in the ears of all the 



feast Jesus went up into the tem- 
ple, and taught. 

15 " And the Jews marvelled, 
saying, How knoweth this man 
letters, having never learned ? 

people, that if any man thirsted, he 
should repair to him and receive the 
water of life. Jesus went up, «tc. 
There was great boldness in thus as- 
suming the position of a public in- 
structor, at a time when his enemies 
were so active and his friends so timid, 
but there was nothing miraculous, as 
some suppose, in his sudden and unex- 
pected appearance in the temple. As 
soon as he reached the city, he probably 
proceeded to the temple, and hence the 
first intimation that he was present at 
the feast, was his unlooked for appear- 
ance in that sacred place. His sudden 
and unannounced presence, and the calm 
assurance with which he took his place 
as a public instructor, so impressed his 
enemies with awe, that he was suffered 
to teach without any molestation or 
interruption. 

15. There was such cogency and 
depth of reasoning, such an acquaint- 
ance with the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament, such power of illustration 
of divine truth, and such directness of 
its application, that all who heard him 
were filled with astonishment, knowing 

! as they did, that he had not been taught 

; in the Eabbinical schools. Some have 
so far lost sight of this great testimony 
to his divine teachings, as to attribute 

' the astonishment of the Jews to his 

[ presumption in arrogating to himself 

: the office of a public teacher. But it 
hardly need be said, that this exposition 

: furnishes no adequate ground for the 
deep feeling of amazement which per- 

! vaded these proud men, and is refuted 
by the following context, which refers 
clearly to his proficiency in the Jewish 
literature, without having been taught 
in the schools of sacred learning. TJiis 

\ man; literally, this, the pronoun having 
evidently here its contemptuous use. 

; See X. on Matt. 26 : 61. letters, i. e. 
learning, which with the Jews was con- 

| fined mostly to the Old Testament. 



158 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



16 Jesus answered them, and 
said, ° My doctrine is not mine, 
"but his that sent me. 

17 p If any man will do his will, 

o Ch. 3: 11 ; & 8 : 28; & 12: 49 ; & 14: 10, 24. 

Alford translates: Scripture learning; 
Olshausen : Sacred Scriptures. " With 
the Jews, learning in general and Scrip- 
tural learning, were one and the same. 
The Lord had given in the temple a 
most surprising and simply profound 
understanding of Scripture, and the 
Evangelist himself (5 : 47) uses letters 
for the writings of Moses." Stier. 
Having never learned,!, e. having never 
been taught in the Jewish schools. The 
negative employed in the Greek is not 
the one of positive denial, but imparts 
the softening sense; having (as we pre- 
sume) never learned ; or as Winer ex- 
plains it, ' since we know him to be such 
a one as has never learned.' 

16. Jesus replies to this expression 
of their wonder, with his accustomed 
sententious brevity and directness. The 
implied train of thought is, that what- 
ever might be thought, or however true 
it might be, that his doctrine or reli- 
gious system was not derived from 
their schools, yet it was not a human 
invention, but came from the Author 
of all truth — God himself. My doc- 
trine ; literally, my teaching, i. e. the 
system of religious truth which I teach. 
Is not mine, i. e. belongs not to me as 
a device or invention of my own, or 
the result of human wisdom, or some- 
thing that is acquired by study, as the 
question (v. 15) would imply. In 
order to make the divinity of his 
doctrine the more striking, Jesus places 
himself on a level with human teachers 
and founders of schools of philosophy ; 
and openly and explicitly declares that 
in such a sense, the system of religious 
truth which he was unfolding, was not 
his own, but that of the Being who had 
sent him, whose commission he bore, 
and who was the source of all truth. 

17. Our Lord now proceeds to show 
how his hearers may arrive at a true 
estimate of the nature and value of his 
instructions. If any man will do his 



he shall know of the doctrine, 
whether it be of God, or whether 
I speak of myself. 

p Ch. 8 : 43. 



will (i. e. desires to love and obey the 
revealed will or commandments of 
God), he shall know of the doctrine (i. e. 
concerning my doctrine), whether it be 
of God, i. e. he shall judge correctly as 
to the source of my doctrine, and fully 
understand its claims as embodying the 
system of divine truth. The knowledge 
referred to is internal and spiritual, a 
divine illumination of the soul of one 
who is a doer as well as hearer of the 
word. Obedience to the divine will is 
here declared to be essential to a suc- 
cessful inquiry after divine truth. Our 
Saviour does not decry human learning. 
He gives no ground for the opinion en- 
tertained by some, that high attain- 
ments in theology and skill in elucidat- 
ing the Scriptures, will be conferred 
upon those who specially devote them- 
selves to his service, apart from any ef- 
fort or mental discipline of their own. 
Spiritual, as well as earthly knowledge, 
is to be sought for as for hidden treas- 
ure. They who think otherwise indulge 
in a dream, which, however bright and 
desirable in their estimation, will never 
be realized. The sentiment of our 
Lord's reply was simply this : ' What- 
ever natural or acquired talents a man 
may possess, if he is an enemy to God 
and his government, he will utterly fail 
of comprehending, in their full and 
gracious import, the spiritual and sub- 
lime truths of revelation. On the other 
hand, while sanctified learning furnishes 
great facilities for the investigation of 
moral truth, yet the humblest and least 
educated intellect animated by the love 
of God, will attain to clearer and richer 
views of redemption by Jesus Christ, 
than can possibly be reached by the 
highest order of unregenerate minds.' 
The form of the hypothetical clause, if 
any man will do his will, is such as to 
denote the possibility of the act, it being 
left to the result to decide whether the 
condition is to be realized. 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VII. 



159 



18 q He that speaketh of him- 
self seeketh his own glory : but 
he that seeketh his glory that sent 
him, the same is true, and no un- 
righteousness is in him. 

19 r Did not Moses 



not 

qCh. 5:41; & 8:50. 
rEx. 24:3: De. 33:4: Jo. 1:17: 



give you 



Ac. 



18. External proof is here furnished 
of the truth of our Lord's doctrine, in 
that he has the glory of God, instead of 
his own, in view. The general truth, 
that whoever spake of himself (\. e. with- 
out expressing the mind of God, or 
self-moved without being incited there- 
to by God) sought his own glory, was 
not applicable to him, for his only aim 
was the glory of his Father. The latter 
clause, but lie that seeketh his glory, &c. 
expresses the converse of the preceding 
proposition, viz. that it is the highest 
proof of the truth and integrity of a 
man, that his sole and undivided pur- 
pose is known to be the promotion of 
God's glory. Our Lord, without ex- 
pressing it in so many words, virtually 
challenges his adversaries to bring his 
life and public teaching to the test of 
this criterion which he had lain down. 
Unrighteousness as opposed to truth, is 
here to be taken in the sense of false- 
hood, imposition. 

19. The reference to Moses in this 
verse is apparently so abrupt, that many 
commentators account for it, by sup- 
posing some interruption on the part 
of the Jews, charging our Lord with 
himself having violated the law in 
breaking the sabbath (see 5 : 16, 18), 
and thus, according to his own showing, 
not doing the will of God. But it is 
quite unnecessary to suppose such an 
interruption. The train of thought is 
clear and natural. The enemies of 
Jesus are charged with being blind to 
his claims and character, not only 
through the perverseness of their mind, 
but also by their violation of the law 
given by Moses. Had they kept this 
law, they would have known that his 
doctrine was of God, because it was 
based upon the same immutable princi- 



the law, and yet none of you keep- 
eth the law ? s Why go ye about 
to kill me ? 

20 The people answered and 
said, ' Thou hast a devil : who 
goeth about to kill thee ? 

«Mt. 12; 11; Ma. 

« 

*ChJ 



:6: ch. 5:16, IS; & 10: 31, 
;& 11:53. 

4S, 52; & 10:20. 



pies of rectitude which constituted the 
spirit and essence of the law. They 
had not done the will of God, as em- 
bodied in the Mosaic code, and hence 
were unable to judge truly of his doc- 
trine. The principle of judgment was 
laid down in v. 11 ; here it is shown 
that in accordance with that principle, 
they were and could not be other than 
blind as to his true character. Moses, 
whom you pretend to honor, and to 
whom you are so fond of referring 
as your lawgiver. Keepeth the laio. 
They were not charged with violating 
one precept only, but the law taken in 
its widest and most extensive sense (see 
James 2 : 10). The expression none of 
you, renders the accusation wide-sweep- 
ing and general. Why go ye about 
(literally, why seek ye) to kill me ? Our 
Lord here specifically charges them 
with breaking the sixth commandment. 
Their murderous intention towards him 
(see v. 1) was a rank violation of this 
great commandment, and, as Alford 
remarks, in the killing the Lord of Life, 
was summed up all the transgression of 
God's law. So Stier : " By the rejection, 
hatred, and final crucifixion of Jesus, 
Israel did indeed break both tables of 
the law, deny to God his honor, hate 
their brother in hatred to God, instead 
of loving him in the love of God (see 
5 : 42), and utterly refused to be loved 
themselves." Why, i. e. what have I 
done that you are so eager to take my 
life ? There is both emphasis and 
pathos in the question. 

20. The people (literally, the multitude) 
unacquainted with the murderous de- 
signs of the rulers, thought that in 
making this charge, he was bereft of 
his senses, or under the influence of a 
lying spirit. Hast a devil, i. e. art 



160 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33 



21 Jesus answered and said 



possessed or out of thy right mind. 
Who goeth about (literally seeketh) to 
kill thee ? Although our Lord referred 
in his accusation especially to the mur- 
derous designs of the priests and rulers, 
yet he proposed his question in v. 19 
to the people whom he was then ad- 
dressing. In a spirit of self-exculpation, 
they ask him to designate the persons, 
who were thus insanely charged with 
conspiring to effect his death. Webster 
and Wilkinson think that the common 
people who said this, were most of them 
aware that the priests and elders were 
seeking to slay him (see v. 25, and 
compare 5 : 1*6, 18), and that their 
hasty disclaimer of all knowledge of 
such an intention, is accounted for by 
their servile fear of their rulers. But 
reference is had in v. 25, to those of 
the audience who were citizens of Jeru- 
salem {some of them of Jerusalem), and 
therefore more intimately acquainted 
with the evil designs of the priests and 
elders, than those who had come up 
from Galilee to the feast, and composed 
no small part of the crowd whom Jesus 
was now addressing. 

21. I have done one work, &c. In re- 
plying thus to their question, there can 
be no doubt that our Lord refers to the 
healing of the impotent man on the 
sabbath (see 5 : 8, 9). This is clear 
from v. 23, where reference is made 
distinctly to that great miracle. It was 
doubtless well known, especially by 
that pox*tion of his auditors who dwelt 
in Jerusalem, that the Jewish priests 
and rulers had become so exasperated 
against him, in consequence of that 
miracle and the discourse which follow- 
ed, that they had ever since been 
planning his death. A reference to the 
one work, was all therefore that was 
necessary to show the people, that 
Jesus did not make an idle or unfound- 
ed charge in the words, " why go ye 
about to kill me?" This passage is 
valuable, as furnishing evidence that 
Jesus did not go up to the passover 
immediately preceding this feast of 
tabernacles ; for had he done so, he 



unto them, I have done one work, 
and ye all marvel. 

would hardly have made reference to 
a miracle, wrought at a previous pass- 
over eighteen months before. One 
work, i. e. a miracle great in itself, and 
to which public attention had been 
directed, by the discussion which grew 
out of the charge made against him 
of having violated the sabbath in 
its performance. He had doubtless 
wrought, on that same occasion, many 
other miracles, but this was one which 
particularly challenged the attention 
of the Jews. Olshausen thinks the 
miracle recorded in 5 : 1-9, too remote 
to have been the one here referred 
to, and that it is far more natural to 
suppose that a similar case had again 
occurred, which gave rise to this 
whole conversation. But if Jesus, as 
is almost certain, had not visited Jeru- 
salem, from the time when he performed 
the miracle at the pool of Bethesda, 
until he came up to this feast of taber- 
nacles, a reference to that miracle 
which had special prominence at the 
time, from the violent opposition against 
Jesus which it excited, is rendered 
neither improbable nor unnatural, by 
the length of time which had intervened 
since its performance. Had Jesus visit- 
ed Jerusalem subsequently to that 
miracle, the reference, as has been 
above remarked, would have pointed 
less clearly to the cure of the impotent 
man. Ye all wondered. Stier refers 
this to a wondering excitement, associ- 
ated with a condemnation of his sab- 
bath-breaking. So also Olshausen and 
Tholuck include in it the additional idea 
of censure, or standing aghast as from 
something dreadful. But perhaps this 
is pressing the meaning of the word too 
far in this connection. Certain it is, 
however, that it was not a wonder and 
admiration of a kind to draw them in 
humble belief to Jesus Christ as their 
true Messiah. The word translated there- 
fore, in the next verse, is thought by 
some to belong more appropriately to 
this verse. It would then read : ye all 
wonder on account of this; or ye all there- 
fore wonder. Olshausen, Stier, Tholuck, 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTEK VII. 



161 



22 u Moses therefore gave unto 
you circumcision ; not because it 
is of Moses, " but of the fathers ; 
and ye on the sabbath clay circum- 
cise a man. 

23 If a man on the sabbath day 

u Le. 12 : 3. 

Bloomfield, Doddridge, and other able I 
interpreters, prefer this division of the 
verses. But Bengel, Alford, Webster 
and Wilkinson, after Chrysostom and 
Grotius, take the words with v. 22, as is | 
done also in our common version. The I 
correspondence between the clauses, ' 
and the additional emphasis imparted 
to the one work, incline me to the 
belief that the words are to be con- 
structed with v. 21. 

22. The reference here made to the 
law of circumcision as given by Moses, 
is intended to show, that if "this rite 
could be performed on the sabbath 
day, without violating it, much more 
could this be said of the making a man 
whole on that day. The argument is a 
fortiori (see N. on Matt. 5: 15). The 
words rendered therefore or on account 
of this, if not connected in translation 
with the preceding clause in v. 21, are 
to be considered as looking forward to 
what is said in the following clause, 
that the law of circumcision was ante- 
rior to Moses, and therefore he adopted 
it as a part of his law. The intricacy 
of this construction is another reason 
why therefore should follow ye all mar- 
vel, in the sense of on account of this. 
Circumcision ; literally, the circumcision, 
referring to the rite abstractly consid- 
ered. Not because it is, &c. This re- 
sponds, as the passage is commonly 
translated, to therefore, or more literally, 
on account of this, in the preceding 
clause, and denotes the reason why 
Moses enacted this law, namely, because 
it had been handed down from the pa- 
triarchs as a divinely established insti- 
tution, which was not to be ignored, 
much less abrogated by the Mosaic law. 
It was the superiority of this rite, in its 
rich privileges and covenant blessings, 
which gave it the supremacy over the 
institution of the sabbath, so far at 



receive circumcision, that the law 
of Moses should not be broken ; 
are ye angry at me, because '■' I 
have made a man every whit 
whole on the sabbath day ? 

x Ge. 17:10. 
2/Ch. 5:S, 9,16. 



least, as that the law of the sabbath 
furnished no hinderauce to its perform- 
ance, when the eighth day fell upon the 
sabbath. Xow the argument from this 
is (a fortiori), that the restoring a man 
to health being founded on the law of 
mercy, might be with even greater pro- 
priety performed on the sabbath day. 
This argument receives additional 
point from the contrast here presented 
between the wounding, washing, and re- 
medial applications attending the rite 
of circumcision, and the simple act of 
healing, which our Lord had perform- 
ed upon the man who lay at the pool 
of Bethesda. On the sabbath day, if it 
happened to be the eighth day from the 
birth of the child. It is of Moses, i. e. 
originated from Moses. The fathers, 
i. e. the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob. See Gen. 11 : 11, 23 ; 21 : 4. 
The institution dated from the time of 
Abraham. A man, i. e. a male child. 
23. The laio of Moses, so called, al- 
though handed down from a previous 
age. Moses reaffirmed this rite by a 
special enactment. See Levit. 12 : 3. 
That the laic, &c. This denotes the ob- 
ject or purpose of circumcising a man 
even on the sabbath. Might not be 
broken. The law recmired the act of 
circumcision to be performed on the 
eighth day from the birth of the child. 
When this day fell upon the sabbath, 
to defer the rite until the next or ninth 
day, would be a direct violation of this 
law. This proves beyond question, 
that the law of circumcision w r as not to 
be set aside, or infringed upon by that 
of the sabbath. Are ye angry, &c. 
The argument was of the same nature 
as the one in Matt. 12:11, 12 (on which 
see Xote), but drawn from a different 
source. Every whit (or altogether) 
whole. This stands opposed to the rite 
of circumcision, which was local, par- 



162 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33 



24 z Judge not according to the 
appearance, but judge righteous 
judgment. 
sDe. 1:16, IT; Pr. 24:23; cb. 8:15'; Ja. 2:1. 

tial, and the symbol only of ceremo- 
nial cleanness. The contrast is evi- 
dently to be gathered from the words 
every whit, and not from the wovdwhole, 
which would require the antithesis of 
wounding, and pain, implied in the act 
of circumcision. But that this enters 
not here into the conception of the rite, 
is evident from the form of the expres- 
sion receive circumcision, which regards 
it as an act of benevolence and love, 
rather than one of pain and suffering. 
The contrast must therefore be between 
that which is partial and imperfect, and 
that which is universal and complete. 
Tholuck has happily hit the idea. " Ye 
transgress the law to perform a sacred, 
beneficent work on that one portion of 
man ; will you be angry with me when 
I perform a work with the same char- 
acteristics, on the entire man ?" 

24. Having thus convicted them of 
an unjust judgment in respect to his 
miraculous cure of the man on the 
sabbath, our Lord proceeds to lay 
down a rule of general obligation. 
Judge not. The present tense refers to 
habitual action : 'Be not in the habit 
(as you now are) of judging,' &c. Ac- 
cording to the appearance, i. e. from 
mere outward appearances, or first im- 
pressions. But judge righteous judg- 
ment, i. e. bring every thing to the 
standard of divine truth, and thus test 
its true character and reach a just de- 
cision. The tense of this second mem- 
ber, refers not to the habit of judging, 
as does the present tense of the verb in 
the first member, but to the one judg- 
ment which they had formed of him on 
the present occasion. This special ap- 
plication of the injunction to the case 
in hand, is rendered still more defi- 
nite by the use of the article in the 
original, judge the righteous judgment, 
i. e. that judgment which is just. Stier 
remarks, that the article very plainly 
expresses a comprehensive reference to 
the precept of their neglected law, 



25 Then said some of them of 
Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom 
they seek to kill ? 



which commanded in vain a righteous 
judgment. 

25,26. Those who had just expressed 
their astonishment, that our Lord should 
make so insane an accusation as he 
seemed to do in v. 19, were from the 
country (see N. on v. 20), and therefore 
comparatively ignorant of the deadly 
hatred which the Jewish rulers bore to 
Jesus. But there were some listeners 
to his discourse, who, being citizens of 
Jerusalem, were not unacquainted with 
the evil intentions of the Sanhedrim. 
These persons, who seem to have been 
well disposed towards Jesus, although 
far from believing in him, openly ex- 
press their astonishment, that one who 
had thus been denounced by the rulers, 
and whose death they were conspiring, 
should be permitted to harangue the 
people unmolested and uninterrupted. 
They query whether the rulers have 
not become convinced of their error in 
rejecting him, and are half persuaded 
themselves to admit his claims to the 
Messiahship. But like the most of their 
countrymen, they stumbled at his low- 
ly condition and remained in impeni- 
tence and unbelief. Such being the 
general train of thought, there remain 
but few verbal obscurities to be cleared 
up. Is not this he, &c. The form of 
the negative in the. original is such 
as presupposes an affirmative answer. 
Hence it is here an emphatic form of 
assertion, in the interrogative form, 
that Jesus was he whom they (i. e. the 
rulers) wished to kill. But lo ! calls at- 
tention to the strangeness of the fact, 
that the rulers suffered him to preach 
unmolested. Boldly, i. e. openly, with- 
out concealment of himself or his doc- 
trines. He was preaching at this time 
in the very enclosure of the temple, 
and in hearing of the thousands who 
came up to the temple worship. Say 
nothing to him. They neither interdict 
nor interrupt him in his speaking. Bo 
the riders indeed knoio, &c. The inter- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VII. 



163 



2G But, lo, lie speaketh boldly, 
and they say nothing unto him. 
a Do the rulers know indeed that 
this is the very Christ ? 

'27 b Howbeit we know this man 
whence he is : but when Christ 
cometh, no man knoweth whence 
he is. 

a Yer. 43. 
5 Mt. 13:55; Ma. 6:3; Lu. 4:22. 

rogation form here employed presup- 
poses a negative reply. Some find a 
shade of irony in this question, but the 
awe which the people entertained for 
the priests and rulers, forbids this sup- 
position. The serious inquiry, which 
all were inclined to make in regard to 
his extraordinary character and claims, 
would ill dispose any to indulge in light 
and trivial remarks. TJie very Christ, 
i. c. the true Messiah. The adverb ren- 
dered very, is the same as the one trans- 
lated indeed or truly, in the preceding 
member. That has reference to defi- 
nite and certain knowledge ; this, to 
the fact of his being the veritable Mes- 
siah. The interrogative form being 
dropped, the sentiment may be thus 
paraphrased: 'It cannot be that the 
rulers know of a certainty that this per- 
son is the true Messiah. Yet if they 
believe that he is an impostor, why do 
they suffer him to teach unmolested in 
this public manner? ' They evidently 
assume that the rulers are half inclined 
to admit his claims, yet with passive 
submission to their will, they do not 
presume to judge for themselves, but 
are content to follow their superior 
judgment. But while they are careful 
not to seem to encroach upon the do- 
main of their rulers in pronouncing 
favorably upon the claims of Jesus, 
they are not slow to bring forward in 
the way of questions as to his birth and 
parentage, what they deem insuperable 
objections to his Messiahship. Such 
appears to be the connection of thought 
between the question, which is here 
proposed in regard to the opinion of 
the rulers respecting Jesus, and the 
bold declaration in v. 27, that they 



28 Then cried Jesus in the 
temple as he taught, saying, c Ye 
both know me, and ye know 
whence I am : and rt I am not 
come of myself, but he that sent 
me e is true, f whom ye know not. 

c See ch. 8 : 14. 

d Ch. 5 : 43 ; & S : 42. 

e Ch. 5 : 22 ; & S : 26 ; Eo. 3 : 4. 

/Ch. 1:18; &S:55. 

know all about the man who puts forth 
these claims for the Messiahship, and 
therefore cannot admit his pretensions. 

27. Wc know this man whence he is; 
or more in accordance with our own 
idiom, we know tohence this man is, i. e. 
we know his parentage, place of resi- 
dence, and early life. The whence, in 
this and the following clause, refers to 
place as well as parentage. They sup- 
posed that Jesus was a Galilean by 
birth (see vs. 41, 42), and either did 
not call to mind, or were wholly igno- 
rant of the fact, that his birth-place 
was Bethlehem, the very city pointed 
out in prophecy as the birth-place of 
the Messiah. Cometh, i. e. makes his 
public appearance to the nation. JS r o 
man, &c. In regard to the Jewish 
notion of the sudden and mysterious 
appearance of the Messiah, see N. on 
Matt. 4 : 5, 6 ; 12 : 38. Webster and 
Wilkinson say that this current notion 
of his appearing suddenly, and without 
being previously known, was due to 
rabbinical interpretations of such pas- 
sages as Gen. 49 : 10 ; Isa. 53:8; Jer. 
23 : 5 ; Ezek. 37 : 24, 25 ; Dan. 7:13; 
Micah 5:2; Mai. 3:1; and perhaps 
Zech. 9 : 9. 

28. These dwellers in Jerusalem had 
carried on the conversation among 
themselves, and probably in low tones, 
yet our Lord by repeating the very 
words they had uttered, showed that 
he knew all they had said — a circum- 
stance which ought to have convinced 
them that he was an extraordinary 
personage, if not the Messiah himself. 
Then or therefore connects what our 
Lord here says, with the preceding col- 
loquy of the Jewish citizens. Cried, 



164 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



i. e. exclaimed aloud. He thus gave 
prominence and emphasis to the great 
utterance which he was about to make. 
Compare Isa, 58 : 1. Stier thinks that 
the conversation of the Jews had be- 
come so tumultuous, that Jesus was con- 
strained, contrary to his wont, to gain 
a hearing by crying aloud in the midst 
of the multitude. But this does not 
comport with the calmness and dignity 
which characterized all our Lord's 
addresses ; and besides this, we have no 
evidence that the assembly became 
so noisy and tumultuous, that our 
Lord could not be heard without shout- 
ing aloud. The words as lie was teach- 
ing, also show that it was his loud and 
earnest delivery which is here referred 
to, and not a shout to gain attention. 
Ye both know, &c. Some commenta- 
tors, as Olshausen and Stier, take this 
in an ironical sense ; but, as Bengel re- 
marks, we never find our Lord using 
irony. The passage in Matt. 23 : 31, 
■which Stier adduces in justification of 
the use of the ironical by our Lord, is 
as far in its solemn denunciation from 
irony as any words can be. Other ex- 
positors read it as an interrogative ; but 
the connectives both — and, forbid this, 
for the latter portion of the verse, in 
that case, must also be regarded as an 
interrogative, which would give the 
very opposite of the true sense. Our 
Lord's reply is therefore to be taken as 
a concession, that in one sense they 
knew his origin, but in another and 
higher sense, they were profoundly ig- 
norant as to who he was, and who had 
sent him. Ye both know me, i. e. are 
acquainted with my personal history. 
Whence I am, i. e. my parentage and 
place of residence. The two expres- 
sions are put emphatically for a full 
knowledge of our Lord's person, parent- 
age, and previous residence. By thus 
conceding that his earthly relations 
were well known to them, and averring 
in the very next clause, that he had 
been sent by one whom they knew not 
— which was a virtual claim to the 
Messiahship — he shows that the knowl- 
edge which they had of his parentage 
and place of birth, did not conflict with 
the truth of his claims, and furnished 



no ground whatever for the objection 
urged against him in v. 27. This decla- 
ration of Jesus was aimed, therefore, 
against the Jewish notion, that the 
Messiah was to appear mysteriously and 
suddenly, his immediate parentage un- 
known, and his early years having been 
passed in some retired place (see N". 
on Matt. 4 : 6). And I am not come of 
myself. The connective and, has been 
usually taken by interpreters in an ad- 
versative sense, as a softened form for 
but. Alford however takes it in the 
sense of and moreover, and besides this. 
But it is better to give the conjunction 
its usual copulative sense, ye know — 
and I know, the two kinds of knowledge 
being more strongly contrasted by the 
close connection in which they are 
placed. The and is not therefore anti- 
thetical, as Tholuck avers, but the con- 
trast lies in the very propositions them- 
selves thus connected. Of myself , i. e. 
apart from the will of my Father, and 
without full credentials of my divine 
commission. Is true, and therefore the 
credentials which I have received from 
him are to be relied upon. True does 
not here signify really existent, as Alford 
thinks, but refers to God's attribute of 
truth, or to Him as the God of truth. 
The argument of Jesus is, that if God 
the Sender is true, the credentials of 
the one sent must be true, and there- 
fore the testimony which he bears of 
his divine character and mission is to 
be received, however his low birth and 
condition may seem to conflict with his 
claims. Thus he bases the proof of 
his Messiahship upon the veracity of 
God, and the denial of the one is a 
virtual denial of the other. The argu- 
ment is exceedingly simple and con- 
vincing. Whom ye know not, and there- 
fore in the higher and truer sense, ye 
know not whence I am. Thus our 
Lord vindicates his claim to the Mes- 
siahship, on the very Messianic sign of a 
mysterious and unknown origin, which 
his enemies had denied him in v. 27. 

29. Contrasted with their ignorance 
of the Being whose commission our 
Lord bore, is his own perfect and inti- 
mate knowledge of Him. The word 
but, with Avhich this verse commences, 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VII. 



165 



29 But 9 1 know him ; for I am 
from him, and he hath sent me. 

30 Then h they sought to take 
him : but ' no man laid hands on 
him, because his hour was not yet 
come. 

31 And *many of the people 

fir Mat. 11:27; ch. 10:15. 

is omitted in very many of the MSS. 
and early versions, and is cancelled by 
some of the best critics. The antithe- 
sis is rendered even more emphatic by 
its omission. / know him, in the high- 
est and most intimate sense. For lam 
from him, is confirmatory and illustra- 
tive of the preceding averment. Am 
from him is a condensed form of ex- 
pression for, am come from him. No 
reference is here made to his eternal 
generation, as Bengel asserts, but sim- 
ply to the fact, that he came, or was 
sent from God. This is brought out 
more distinctly in the next clause for 
he hath sent me, in which our Lord de- 
clares that he was commissioned and 
sent by God to perform the work 
assigned him. Two great and distinct 
truths are here revealed, one that he 
came from God ; the other, that he 
was sent of Him. The former of these, 
according to Stier, responds to ye know 
me ; and the latter, to whence I am, in 
v. 28. 

30. The enemies of Jesus appear to 
have been greatly exasperated by what 
had been said (vs. 25-27) of their timid 
and undecided counsels, or what is more 
probable, by the emphatic declaration 
which Jesus had just made of his hav- 
ing come from God as his accredited 
messenger. They sought therefore to 
apprehend him in order to put him to 
death, but failed to accomplish their 
design, his hour not having yet come. 
They, i. e. the rulers. See v. 25. To 
take, or arrest in a judicial sense. The 
word is one of strong import, its literal 
signification being to press, squeeze, to 
press tight so as to make fast; and 
hence metaphorically, to press hard, 
follow close, to catch, as animals taken 
in hunting or fishing. But no man, kc. 
The only reason given is, that his hour 



believed on him, and said, When 
Christ cometh, will he do more 
miracles than these which this 
man hath done ? 

h Ma. 11 : IS ; Lu. 19 : 47 ; & 20 : 19 ; vr. 19 ; ch. 

8:37. 

i Ver. 41 ; ch. S : 20. 

h Mat. 12 : 23 ; ch. 3 : 2 ; & 8 : 80. 

had not yet come, i. e. the time appoint- 
ed of God for his apprehension, trial, 
and death. The proximate cause may 
have been the fear of the people, num- 
bers of whom probably surrounded 
him as his resolute and determined 
friends. There may have been also at 
this time something in his appearance 
and manner which inspired them with 
awe, like that which took place after- 
ward in the garden (IS: C>). 

31. The people, i. e. the multitude, 
the common people. These were not the 
dwellers in Jerusalem (v. 25), for they 
ended their colloquy with an argument 
against the Messiahship of Jesus, which 
they regarded as unanswerable. The 
people now referred to are those who 
came up from the country, probably 
from Galilee, where our Lord had made 
the most frequent display of his mirac- 
ulous powers. Believed on him. There 
is no reason to doubt the genuineness 
of their faith, because in v. 32, they 
are said to have expressed their senti- 
ments in murmurs. So closely watched 
were they by the enemies of Jesus, 
embracing almost all the persons of 
station and influence, that they dared 
not give open expression to their real 
sentiments, but carried on their con- 
versation in low tones and whispers. 
The only question which can be raised 
is, whether they believed on Jesus as 
the predicted Messiah, or simply as a 
prophet. Tholuck adopts the latter 
view ; but that the former is the true 
exposition, is evident from the question 
which they here propose to one another, 
the sentiment of which is, that no 
higher or more abundantly exerted 
miraculous power could be expected of 
the Messiah than had been manifested 
by Jesus, and therefore there could be 
no doubt that he was that personage. 



166 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



32 The Pharisees heard that 
the people murmured such things 
concerning him; and the Phari- 
sees and the chief priests sent 
officers to take him. 



There were some however (see v. 40), 
whose faith was too weak to discern in 
him other than the great prophet, who 
was to be the precursor or attendant of 
the Messiah (see 1 : 21). When Christ 
(literally, the Christ) cometh. The mood 
in the original imparts indefiniteness to 
this clause, and implies, as Alford 
justly remarks, their belief that the 
Christ had already come. Will he do 
(is it possible for him to do) more mir- 
acles ? i. e. give more convincing proof, ■ 
as a miracle-worker, of his Messiahship. 
Their reference to miracles as proof of 
his being the Messiah, furnishes no 
argument against the genuineness of 
their faith, for his miracles constituted 
the more open and palpable proofs, to 
which our Lord himself frequently ap- 
pealed in confirmation of his divine 
commission. More miracles refers to 
the stupendous character of his works, 
as well as to their number. It is worthy 
of note, that in all the reasonings and 
discussions, which took place among 
the different sorts of persons who lis- 
tened to this discourse of Jesus, no one 
seems to have questioned his possession 
of miraculous powers, or the reality of 
the miracles said to be performed by 
him. 

32. Emissaiies and spies of the 
Pharisees were doubtless scattered 
through the audience, while Jesus was 
preaching and teaching. Through 
these informers and others, who might 
wish to ingratiate themselves with the 
rulers by conveying intelligence of this 
nature to them, they learn that Jesus is 
swaying the people to the belief 
and acknowledgment of his claims. 
Alarmed at this report, they deter- 
mine on bold and decisive measures, 
and dispatch officers forthwith to ap- 
prehend him. Pharisees and chief 
priests, i. e. the Sanhedrim. The 
Sadducees are not here mentioned, 
although there were some of that sect 



33 Then said Jesus unto them, 
1 Yet a little while am I with you, 
and then I go unto him that sent 



ZCh. 13: 



&16:16. 



in the Sanhedrim. The omission seems 
to indicate what was probably true, 
that this new and violent persecution 
proceeded mainly from the Pharisees. 
Officers, the beadles or attendants of 
the Sanhedrim. 

33. These words were doubtless ad- 
dressed by Jesus to the people, and 
were suggested by the bold and open 
measures now beginning to be taken 
by his enemies, which he well knew 
would not be intermitted, until they 
had accomplished their purpose to put 
him to death. Hence this verse is in- 
troduced by the illative then or there- 
fore. The officers sent to take him 
were now present, but were restrained 
from laying hands on him, by the awe 
with which they were inspired by his 
presence and words. Yet a little while, 
&c. The general sentiment is that 
although he had but a short time to 
remain on earth before he returned to 
God, yet until that hour came, he was 
safe from the machinations of his ene- 
mies. The expression a little while or 
a little time longer, was not a loose, 
careless utterance, for it was only six 
months to the time of his crucifixion. 
/ am with you on earth. This of course 
refers to his bodily presence. His 
spiritual presence was promised to his 
disciples even to the end of the world. 
This passage does not therefore deny 
his omnipresence. And then I go unto 
him that sent me. His reference here 
to a premature and violent death at the 
hands of his enemies, could hardly be 
mistaken. The word then, is needlessly 
italicized by our translators, since it 
is implied in the conjunction, which 
makes the latter clause cotemporary 
with the limitation of time referred to 
in the preceding member. Him that 
sent me. It is noticeable how constant 
a reference is made in this discourse, 
as well as in others which our Lord held 
with the Jews, to the great fundamen- 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER VII. 



167 



34 Ye m shall seek me, and shall 
not find me: and where I am, 
thither ye cannot come. 

35 Then said the Jews among 
themselves, Whither will he go, 

m Ho. 5 : 6 ; ch. S : 21 ; & 13 : 33. 

tal fact, that he was sent of God, and 
that he came not into the world to do 
his own will, but the will of Him that 
sent him. See N. on 10 : 25. 

34. Ye shall seek vie. In what sense are 
these words to be taken? Some say 
that reference is had to the inability of 
his enemies to lay hands upon him, 
after he had ascended to his Father. 
But this exposition is absurd, for after 
having compassed his death, they would 
not seek to apprehend him. Others 
say that they would be forced by their 
miseries at the siege of Jerusalem to seek 
his aid, but would seek it in vain. But 
this does not comport with the facts of 
the case. "We have no evidence that 
the dreadful sufferings endured at the 
siege and downfall of Jerusalem, ex- 
torted from any the confession that 
they were paying the penalty of having 
rejected and crucified their Messiah. 
The same may also be said of their ob- 
stinate persistence in unbelief, in all the 
persecutions which they have suffered at 
the hands of their enemies since their 
dispersion among the nations. During 
all the centuries, down to the present 
time, they have remained in the most 
profound spiritual stupidity and unbe- 
lief. Another opinion is, that they 
would seek him in their false Christs, but 
without success. This, however, is far- 
fetched and inapposite. Olshausen re- 
fers it to the spiritual seeking and long- 
ing for Christ, which taking possession 
of them after they had sinned away 
the day of grace, would be of no avail 
to remove the barrier between them 
and Christ. But is it true, that those who 
have sinned away the day of grace ever 
experience afterward any spiritual long- 
ing for Christ ? We think not. What, 
then, is the true sense to be attached 
to this expression? To obtain this, we 
must consult the context. He was to 
remain with the Jews a little time 



that we shall not find him ? will 
he go unto " the dispersed among 
the Gentiles, and teach the Gen- 
tiles ? 

wis. 11:12; Ja. 1:1:1 Pe. 1:1. 



longer, and then take his departure 
from earth. So final and complete was 
to be his separation from them, that 
however much they might be disposed 
to seek him, they should not find him. 
It is not assumed as a fact that they 
would seek him, but the supposition is 
made, in order to bring out more for- 
cibly the truth that he was hereafter to 
be forever removed from them. The 
sentiment is, that however long and 
earnestly they might seek him, so com- 
pletely separated was he to be hereafter 
from persons of such impenitence and 
unbelief, they would never be able to 
find him. The reason is given in the 
following words : and (i. e. for) where I 
am (when I go to him who sent me) ye 
cannot come. If we compare this with 
what our Lord said to Peter (13 : 36), 
we cannot doubt that the spiritual un- 
fitness of the Jews to enter heaven is 
referred to. The first clause of this 
verse indicates, therefore, his complete 
and final separation from them ; and 
the second, the impossibility of their 
being with him in their present state 
of impenitence and unbelief. See 8 : 
21-24. 

35. The Jews who were present so 
misunderstood his words, as to suppose 
that he intended to elude apprehension 
by a sojourn in some distant land. Or 
it may be that they uttered this in 
mockery, as though they had said: 
' How does he imagine that he can with- 
draw himself where we cannot find 
him ? Does he think that in those re- 
gions where the Jews are dispersed, he 
can secrete himself from our observation 
or place himself beyond our reach? 
What then does he mean by so absurd 
a statement as he has just made ? ' 
Stier considers the words as spoken in 
bitter mockery, and perhaps this is the 
true exposition. Tliat (in accordance 
with his declaration, v. 34) we shall not 



168 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



36 What manner of saying is 
tliis that he said, Ye shall seek 
me, and shall not find me : and 
•where I am, thither ye cannot 
come ? 

find him, i. e. shall not be able to find 
him. The dispersed among the Gen- 
tiles ; literally, the dispersion among 
the Gentiles, the abstract being put for 
the concrete. Tfie Gentiles is put trop- 
ically for the places where those Jews 
abode, who were scattered among the 
Gentiles, and living in Gentile countries. 
Stier contends that place, and not peo- 
ple, is here intended, as the residence 
of their people was the great point in 
all their notions of geography. Alford 
and Olshausen refer the expression to 
the Gentile world, or the people of the 
countries where the Jews lay scattered. 
The reason which Olshausen gives, that 
it is only thus that force can be given 
to the antithesis between the supposed 
abandonment of Jerusalem and the 
withdrawal to other lands, is not of 
much weight. It would surely be a 
great stoop in their estimation, for one 
who had claimed the Messiahship to be 
obliged to leave Jerusalem, the capital 
of the nation, and the seat of religious 
worship, and seek converts to his claim 
among the Jews who were scattered in 
Gentile countries. Webster and Wil- 
kinson say that the term Gentiles (lit- 
erally Greeks), is applied here to all for- 
eign Jews, and refer in proof of this to 
12: 20. But reference is had in that 
passage to Greek proselytes, and I con- 
cur with Stier that the Hellenistic Jews 
are never called Hellenes or Greeks. 
And teach the Gentiles (or Greeks), i. e. 
obtain from the dispersed Jews an as- 
sent to his claims, and operate through 
them upon the Gentile world. Neander 
would almost seem to be right in his 
conjecture, that the Jews had begun to 
surmise the tendency of Christ's teach- 
ing to embi-ace mankind universally. It 
ought to be noted here that the term 
Greeks, from the fact that the Greek 
language was spoken very extensively 
in Asia Minor and in other countries, 
was often employed to denote the 



37 ° In the last day, that great 
day of the feast, Jesus stood and 
cried, saying, p If any man thirst, 
let him come unto me, and drink. 

o Le. 23 : 36. 
2>Is. 55:1; ch. 6:35; Ee. 22:17. 

heathen world, or all who were not 
Jews — that is, the Gentiles. 

36. This verse implies an ellipsis : 
[He cannot contemplate so absurd a 
thing as that], what manner of saying 
then is this ; literally, what is this 
saying, what is its real purport? In 
the dulness of their apprehension in 
this, as in other instances where our 
Lord's words were misunderstood or 
perverted by them, we see that they 
ever lost sight of the spiritual, and af- 
fixed the lowest and grossest sense to 
his sayings. 

3*7. In the last day, &c. This verse 
has furnished some difficulty, as to 
whether there were any peculiar solem- 
nities, which would entitle the eighth 
day to the epithet great, here given it. 
But although in Deut. 16 : 13, nothing 
is said of the eighth day, yet in Levit. 
23 : 36-39 ; Numb. 29 : 35 ; Neh. 8 : 18, 
we find that this day was honored, as 
being the day of a solemn assembly on 
which no servile work was to be per- 
formed. See also Joseph. Antiq. III. 
10, § 4. It was not one of the feast days, 
but closed up the festival as a day of 
the holy convocation of the people, and 
one of more than ordinary solemnity. 
It was denominated a day of the feast, 
because it belonged to the festival, al- 
though the people on the seventh day 
ceased to occupy booths, and offer the 
prescribed sacrifices. In regard to the 
question connected with this passage, 
as to whether water was brought 
in joyous procession from the pool of 
Siloam on this day, or whether that 
ceremony ceased on the preceding day, 
Alford contends that the ceremony was 
performed on each of the seven days, 
and the Hallel was sung, but that on 
the eighth day, the pouring of water 
did not take place, although the Hallel 
was sung. It was this absence of the 
ceremonial water, which he contends 
gives greater point and appositeness to 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VII. 



169 



our Saviour's words. Stier, on the 
other hand, demurs at this as being 
very beautiful, but too far-fetched and 
uncertain a foundation for our Lord's 
words on this occasion. The tra- 
dition of the Rabbies is not uni- 
form or concurrent on this mooted 
question, as is shown by Tholuck in his 
exposition of this passage. I am of 
the opinion that the usual view is the 
correct one ; that on this day, as well 
as on those preceding, and with louder 
and more general expressions of joy, 
the priest brought forth, in a golden 
vessel, water from the spring of Siloah, 
and poured it upon the altar, and that 
it was at the time when the water was 
thus being borne in jubilant procession 
towards the altar, that Jesus proffered 
the water of life to all who would come 
unto him and drink. This receives ad- 
ditional confirmation from the fact, that 
the Rabbies expressly referred this water 
to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. 
As to what is said, that the absence of 
the water on the eighth day furnished 
an occasion for our Lord to utter these 
words, it has little force ; for if it had 
been the custom for centuries to sus- 
pend this ceremony after the seventh 
day, its omission on the eighth would 
make no chasm in the exercises, or ex- 
cite the least notice on the part of the 
people. 

If any man thirst, i. e. whosoever 
thirsts, the words implying no doubt in 
regard to the fact, that some of those 
present might be included in this num- 
ber. "Whoever such persons were, they 
are here invited to approach and slake 
their thirst from the fountain of living 
water. It does not appear from the 
record, that any one of the people 
took this in the sense of a literal thirst- 
ing for water, but of an eager desire 
for happiness and eternal life. let 
him come unto me and drink. What 
our Lord had spoken in the ear of the 
woman at the well of Samaria, he now 
publicly proclaims to all the people on 
the great day of the feast. It is no- 
ticeable, that the canon of scripture 
closes with a renewal of this offer of 
the water of life, expressed in the most 
ample terms. See Rev. 22 : 17. But 
Vol. ILL— S 



this rich and wondrous gift could only 
be secured by coming to Christ, that is, 
by believing on him as the Messiah and 
Saviour of men. Faith in him was the 
only condition on which eternal life 
could be secured. It was to be the 
personal act of each individual. The 
water borne from Siloah was poured out 
upon the altar, being typical of the 
water drawn from the rock in the wil- 
derness, or, as some think, of the rain 
which was thus symbolically asked for 
the ensuing year. But the water which 
Jesus offered* to bestow, was to be sought 
for and received by them individually, 
in order that its life-giving properties 
might be enjoyed. Yet there was a 
pouring out even of our Lord's precious 
blood, that this fountain of salvation 
might be opened for men. Some ex- 
positors in view of Matt, o : G, refer this 
proffer of our Lord to those who had 
already believed in him, and were long- 
ing for more enlarged measures of 
grace. But this deprives the passage 
of all pertinency and force. Did our 
Lord raise his voice so as to be heard 
by every person in the spacious enclo- 
sure, to proffer the water of life to 
the few only, in whose hearts the 
germ of true faith had already been 
planted? By no means. A more en- 
larged signification is to be sought in 
this great utterance. The expression 
thirst, is to be here referred to that 
strong and quenchless desire which 
springs up in the soul, ill at ease through 
the upbraidings of a wounded con- 
science and a sense of the hollow and 
deceitful nature of earthly good, for 
something better, more substantial, and 
congenial with the cravings of the im- 
mortal spirit within. There were doubt- 
less many such in that vast assembly. 
Under the imagery of one thirsting for 
water, which everywhere, and especial- 
ly in countries like Palestine where the 
want of water is so frequently expe- 
rienced, would be well understood, our 
Lord proffers to all such persons that 
which will forever satisfy the longings 
of the soul and give it permanent rest. 
This is unquestionably the true sense of 
the passage. 

38. He that believeth on me. The 



170 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



38 q He that "believetli on me, 
as the Scripture hath said, r out 

gBe. IS: 15. 

punctuation adopted by some critics, 
disjoins the words and drink, from the 
preceding verse, and connects them 
with this. The construction and sense 
would then be, and let him that believ- 
eth on me drink. But this makes a 
harsh construction, and weakens the 
force of the passage. Nor does the 
original require such a punctuation. 
The clause he that believeth on me, has 
no expressed predicate, but the predi- 
cate is implied in the words, out of his 
belly shall flow rivers of living water. 
Such a construction is quite frequently 
found in the best classic Greek, and is 
noticed in the Greek grammars. The 
words he that believeth on me, are a 
varied expression for what is represent- 
ed in the preceding verse by coming 
and drinking. This rendered clear to 
the people what was meant by the in- 
vitation which Jesus had just given. 
Out of his belly, i. e. from within him. 
The belly or stomach is here used figu- 
ratively, because it is the receptacle of 
water taken into a man. Or perhaps 
the imagery may be founded on a com- 
mon use of the word belly, to denote 
some hollow and capacious place, in 
which water may be contained. Thus 
we speak of the belly of the sea, of a 
mountain, or of any great and capa- 
cious vessel. Tholuck finds a reference 
to the belly or cavity of the golden 
vessel, from which the water brought 
from Siloah into the temple was poured 
out. But the cavity of a small vessel 
or urn, is very seldom designated by a 
word so expressive of that which swells 
out in large capacity. The general 
sentiment is clear, that from him, 
who comes to Christ, and partakes 
of the living water which he freely 
gives to all who thus approach him, 
shall flow refreshing and life-giving 
streams, so that others also shall be 
benefited by the gift within him. 
Bengel refers the pronoun him, to the 
Messiah himself, but this would hardly 
be consonant with the wants of the 
passage, which most clearly refers to 



of his belly shall flow rivers of 
living water. 

rPr. 18:4; Is. 12: 3; & 44:3; ch. 4: 14. 

the fulness of blessing, even to over- 
flowing, which shall be his who comes 
to Christ and receives from him the 
water of life. The great abundance of 
these living waters, issuing from the 
believer for the comfort and refresh- 
ment of others, is here represented by 
the term rivers. There is probably an 
implied comparison between the foun- 
tain of Siloah, from which was borne 
the ceremonial water into the temple, 
and the inexhaustible stream of living 
water here promised to every believer. 

This abundant supply of the water of 
life, and its full and free intercommuni- 
cation among those who have drunk of 
it, is declared by our Lord to be what 
is represented in the Old Testament 
Scriptures. As the Scripture hath said. 
Who does not recur at once to such 
passages as Isa. 44 : 3 ; 58: 11, where 
floods of water are promised to him 
that is thirsty, making him " like a 
watered garden and like a spring of 
water, whose waters fail not ?" See 
also Joel 3 : 18, where abundance of 
milk and refreshing streams are prom- 
ised, as blessings to be bestowed plen- 
teously upon the church. Still more in 
point are the waters of Ezekiel's mys- 
terious city, at first a mere rivulet pro- 
ceeding from the temple, (so in Joel 
" from the house of Jehovah,") but 
gradually increasing in depth and 
breadth, until it became a great river 
for a man to swim in. As our Lord 
is the spiritual temple from which flows 
this spiritual river, so his people, who 
are also living temples of his grace, 
have the like possession of spiritual 
gifts to be imparted to those around 
them. He is the fountain from which 
they are supplied with living water. 
They are the depositaries of his gift, 
but not in a sense restrictive and selfish, 
but to be freely imparted to others. 
Freely they have received, freely they 
are to give. Matt. 10 : 8. 

In the light of this great utterance 
of our Lord, an interpretation may be 
given to Zech. 14 : 1-11, which will re- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VII. 



171 



39 ' But this spake he of the 
Spirit, -which they that believe on 
him should receive : for the Holy 

s Is. 44:3; Joel 2:23; cli. 16:7; Ac. 2:1 



44:3; Joel 2:23; cli. 16: 
S3, S3. 



deem it from the low and sensuous 
views of those, who would explain it as 
referring to great physical changes, 
and a personal descent of our Saviour to 
reign in imperial state at Jerusalem. 
The great convulsion by which moun- 
tain barriers were to be rent asunder, 
and living streams caused to flow forth 
to the stagnant waters of the Dead Sea, 
and also to the " hinder sea" (i. e. the 
Mediterranean), typify a great moral 
awakening of the church of Christ, 
whence shall issue streams of salvation 
to bless and enlighten a dying world. 
The standing of our Saviour upon the 
mount of Olives (Zech. 14 : 4), denotes 
his spiritual presence and power in ef- 
fecting this moral renovation. The re- 
maining imagery of the chapter beauti- 
fully harmonizes with this idea. The 
annual visit of all the families of the 
earth (vs. 16-19) to this spiritual Jeru- 
salem, is a figurative representation of 
the bonds of love and communion, 
which will bind the churches of 
Christ to one another and to their Great 
Head. Nothing tended so much to 
preserve the nationality of the Jews, as 
their stated visits to Jerusalem to keep 
the prescribed feasts, and this custom, 
with its happy results, is transferred 
spiritually to the church in the days of 
her prosperity, to denote the union of 
God's people, and their public acknowl- 
edgment of Jesus as their Redeemer 
and King. 

Let us compare briefly with these 
passages in Ezekiel and Zechariah, the 
Xew Jerusalem of the Apocalyptic 
vision. This city has also its river of 
life, proceeding from the throne of God 
and the Lamb. But with a beautiful 
diversity of imagery and yet remarkable 
unity of sentiment, the healing pro- 
perty which belonged to the waters of 
Ezekiel, and Zechariah, is here placed 
in the leaves of the trees which grow 
upon the banks of the river. These 
leaves were "for the healing of the 



Ghost was not yet given; "be- 
cause that Jesus was not yet 
'glorified. 

t Ch. 12 : 16 ; & 16 : 7. 



nations." Can any one doubt that the 
living waters proceeding from the 
sanctuary in Ezekiel's mystic city, and 
from Jerusalem in the time of the great 
moral renovation predicted by Zecha- 
riah (see also Joel 3 : 18), and the 
healing leaves of John's tree of life, 
refer alike to the influences which the 
church in the days of her future glory, 
shall exert upon the world ? Is it not 
quite clear that these are the Scriptures, 
which affirm that rivers shall flow forth 
from the church of Christ, and indeed 
from the belli/ of each believer ? The 
prophetic promise of a fountain which 
shall flow forth in the Messianic 
times from the church, the spiritual 
Jerusalem, is oftentimes repeated in 
the Old Testament. Here in its appli- 
cation, our Lord avers that each be- 
liever who has himself drunk from the 
Fountain of life, shall be the channel 
of spiritual blessings to others, so that 
it may be truly said, that from his belly 
shall flow rivers of living water. 

39. John now explains to his readers 
what was meant by this living water, 
which the believer was to receive from 
Christ. TJiis spake he of (i. e. concern- 
ing) the Spirit. It was the Spirit's 
influence, which was here promised to 
all such as came to Jesus. It was not 
simply the gift of the Spirit drawing 
the soul to Christ, but it was the 
permanent indwelling of the Spirit, 
transforming the whole spiritual man 
into the image of God, and filling the 
soul to overflowing with all the graces 
and fruits of holiness. This gift of the 
Spirit was not yet, however, fully pos- 
sessed by the disciples of Jesus, j or the 
Holy Ghost was not yet given. The 
word given, is needlessly supplied in our 
common version, the verb was having 
the signification teas present, a sense 
not unusual. Was not yet is far from 
implying that the Holy Ghost had not 
yet any personal existence. His influ- 
ence had pervaded and directed the 



172 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



40 Many of the people there- 
fore, when they heard this saying, 
said, Of a truth this is u the Pro- 
phet. 

uDe. 1-8:15,18; ch. 1:21; & 6:14. 

mincls of the Old Testament writers 
(see 2 Pet. 1 : 21), and His agency in 
the miraculous birth of our Lord (Matt. 
1 : 20 ; Luke 1 : 35) is clearly revealed. 
See also 1 : 32, 33 ; 3 : 5, 8, 24. Before 
the atonement was actually made, by 
virtue of its anticipated provisions of 
mercy, the Holy Spirit even from the 
time of the apostasy had been given 
to men, and had been abroad in the 
earth and especially among God's 
covenant people, regenerating and 
sanctifying the souls of men, and pre- 
paring them for God's presence in 
heaven. The outpouring of the Spirit, 
however, in the New Testament dispen- 
sation, was so abundant and free, 
compared with the measure of His 
influence enjoyed in the preceding dis- 
pensations, that it was as though He 
had not been given to man. See N. on 
16 : IV. Tholuck rightly remarks, that 
the expression designates something 
more than the comparative amount of 
activity and power. It denotes a dis- 
tinction also in the character of the 
outpouring. " The Holy Spirit in the 
specific Christian sense is that spirit 
which was wrought, in virtue of the 
mystic union, with the glorified Christ, 
the new spirit of adoption which rests 
on the consciousness of the finished 
propitiation, the spirit in the power of 
which the redeemed man knows him- 
self more and more as the organ of 
that Christ who works in him and 
through him. This Spirit could descend 
upon the disciples, only after the 
propitiation had been actually accom- 
plished, and Christ spiritually glorified." 
Because Jesus, &c. Our Lord promised 
to send the Spirit, as the Comforter 
and Guide of his people. This he 
could not do until he had ascended up 
to heaven in his glorified body. See 
lfi : 7, where our Lord expressly says 
that his departure from earth must 
take place before the Comforter, the 



41 Others said, z This is the 
Christ. But some said, Shall 
Christ come y out of Galilee ? 

05 Ch. 4 : 42 ; & 6 : 69. 
y Yer. 52 ; ch. 1 : 40. 

Spirit of truth (v. 13), can come to his 
disciples. 

40. The words which our Lord had 
just spoken in the ear of the people, 
were so gracious and tender, and his 
citation of the Scripture so apposite 
and convincing, that a great change 
was wrought in the mind of many of 
his hearers, as to his character. Some 
were disposed to regard him as the 
Prophet which was to appear. See N. 
on 1 : 21 ; also compare Deut. 18 : 15. 
Others went still further, and avowed 
their belief that he was the Messiah 
himself. But this was met at once by 
the oft repeated objection that Jesus 
had sprung from Galilean parents, the 
question shall Christ come out of Gali- 
lee ? being so shaped in the original, as 
to show that a negative answer was 
expected. The objection expressed in 
this interrogative form, they fortify by 
an appeal to Scripture. Thus those 
even who were friendly to him, were 
much divided in respect to the position 
which they should assign him in his 
official character. Stier remarks upon 
the ignorance of the people in regard 
to the scriptural fact, that the Prophet 
and the Messiah designate one and the 
same personage. This saying, i. e. the 
one recorded in vs. 37, 38. It was an 
utterance of such conscious power and 
authority in him who made it, and of 
such compassion, tenderness, and ful- 
ness in its terms, that it seems to have 
stirred the emotions of the people to 
their profoundest depths. 

41. Others of the people. Sec v. 31. 
But some said. This is not in the 
original the strong adversative con- 
junction, but the one which is slightly 
so, and serves therefore to point to 
these persons as not opposing the 
claims of Jesus as a prophet or divinely 
commissioned religious teacher, but as 
the Messiah. The persons represented 
by so?ne in this clause, I would refer 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VII. 



173 



42 z Hath not the Scripture 
said, That Christ cometh of the 
seed of David, and out of the 
town of Bethlehem, a where David 
was ? 

s Ps. 132 : 11 ; Je. 23 : 5 ; Mi. 5 : 2 ; Mat. 2:5; 
Lu. 2:4. 

fllSa. 16:1,4. 

therefore to those who in the preceding 
verse, expressed their convictions that 
Jesus was the prophet, but could go no 
further, through the weakness of their 
faith, and ignorance that Jesus was 
born at Bethlehem in accordance with 
the Messianic predictions in the Old 
Testament. Some have included these 
opposers to the Messiahship of Jesus, 
in the class of persons referred to in v. 
27. But the connection in which that 
verse stands, shows that these persons 
were our Lord's enemies ; whereas all 
the persons who took part in the dis- 
cussion as to what rank should be 
assigned to Jesus, were to be number- 
ed at the time among his professed 
friends. This however does not forbid 
our supposing, that the dispute resulted 
in the going over to the side of his 
enemies of many of those who could 
see in him no marks of Messiahship, 
although willing to concede that he was 
an eminent prophet. This will serve to 
explain the words some of them in v. 
44, who desired to apprehend him. 
That it may refer at least in part to 
some who had a short time previous 
stoutly maintained that Jesus was the 
prophet, no one will deny, who remem- 
bers how fickle is that friendship which 
is not based upon principles of truth 
and rectitude. The interrogative, shall 
Christ come out of Galilee ? is in the 
original introduced by a particle which 
implies an ellipsis : (this cannot be) for 
does Christ come, &c. In the following 
question, hath not the Scripture said? 
the original is so constructed as to re- 
quire an affirmative answer, and thus 
this question strengthens the denial 
implied in the previous question. 

42. Hath not the Scripture said, &c. 
See Ps. 89 : 3, 4; 132: 11; Micah 
5 : 2. Cometh of the seed of David, i. e. 



43 So b there was a division 
among the people because of him. 

44 And c some of them would 
have taken him ; but no man laid 
hands on him. 



b Ver. 12 ; ch. 9 : 16 ; & 10 : 19. 
c Ver. 30. 



shall be a lineal descendant of David. 
Out of the town of Bethlehem. It seems 
that the people at this time were igno- 
rant of the fact, that Jesus had all those 
marks of Messiahship, having been born 
in Bethlehem and of the royal line of 
David. We see from the objection here 
advanced against the acknowledgment 
of Jesus as the Messiah, how important 
were the genealogical tables given by 
Matthew and Luke. It was in the very 
outset necessary to enlighten the peo- 
ple on this point, and stop the mouths 
of those who sought arguments against 
the claims of Jesus, from his reputed 
birth-place and low and obscure pa- 
rentage. John presupposes the knowl- 
edge of this on the part of his readers, 
and therefore passes it by in silence. 
Where David was, i. e. where he was 
brought up. 

43. #o (or more literally therefore) 
in consequence of their various and con- 
flicting sentiments. Division; literally 
a rent, as in a garment (see Matt. 9 : 
16); a cleft, as when rocks are rent asun- 
der. Here it signifies a schism, reference 
being had to the violence of the dis- 
pute, which ended in irreconcilable di- 
vision. 

44. Some of them, i. e. of the multi- 
tude who denied his Messiahship. These 
persons had become so exasperated at 
what they deemed his false claims to 
the Messiahship, that they desired to 
seize him and drag him before the 
rulers. Doddridge and some other ex- 
positors, refer this premeditated violence 
to the officers sent to apprehend him, 
some of whom were ready and desirous 
to execute their commission. But their 
report made to the rulers (v. 46), does 
not indicate any such division of senti- 
ment in regard to Jesus. They seem 
to have reported with singular unanimi- 



174 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



45 Then came the officers to 
the chief priests and Pharisees ; 
and they said unto them. Why 
have ye not brought him ? 

46 The officers answered, d Nev- 
er man spake like this man. 

ty, that "never man spake like this 
man." But no man, &c. This is to be 
attributed to the awe which his pres- 
ence inspired, his time of deliverance 
into the hands of his enemies not hav- 
ing yet come (see Ns. on v. 80, also 18, 
6);. or to the fear of the opposite party 
who espoused the claims of Jesus. 

45. As it is not very probable that 
these officers had been listening to the 
discourses of Jesus for several days, 
Alford supposes these verses to go back 
a little from what has immediately pre- 
ceded. Tfien came, &c. They were 
obliged to make their official return to 
the rulers, under whose orders they 
were acting. They said refers to the 
chief priests and Pharisees. Some re- 
fer the pronoun to the chief priests 
alone, as the Pharisees are especially 
mentioned in v. 47. But in both in- 
stances the whole Sanhedrim is referred 
to, the Pharisees constituting the prin- 
cipal portion of that body. 

46. Never man spake, &c. A most 
remarkable testimony to the power and 
unction of our Lord's discourses. These 
officers make no apology for not hav- 
ing executed their commission. They 
fear not the censure of the Sanhedrim 
for not having obeyed its orders. They 
are not awed into silence by the august 
presence of the priests and rulers, but 
exclaim, as though almost beside 
themselves in wonder and admiration 
of the person whom they had been 
commissioned to apprehend, never man 
spake like this man. Olshausen remarks : 
" doubtless these men were incapable 
of apprehending the thoughts of Jesus, 
but the impression of his personal char- 
acter overcame them." But is it in- 
credible that they should have been 
affected by the truth distilled from his 
divine lips ; and that some of them, at 
least, enrolled themselves thenceforth 
as his disciples? That great saying 



47 Then answered them the 

Pharisees, Are ye also deceived ?. 

48 e Have any of the rulers or 
of the Pharisees believed on him ? 

d Mt. 7 : 29 
e Ch. 12:42; Ac. 6:7; 1 Co.l: 20, 26; &2:8. 



(v. 40), in which the living water of 
life was proffered to all who would 
come to Jesus and drink, had been 
pronounced in the hearing of these 
officers, and may not this have been 
the very declaration to which they re- 
fer, as in its matter and manner unlike 
any thing ever spoken by man ? 

47, 48. Are ye also (as well as the 
multitude) deceived? The form of in- 
terrogation implies the denial of this, 
as though they had added : 'it cannot 
be that you, our trusty and intelligent 
officers ; will suffer yourselves to be de- 
ceived by this impostor.' In like man- 
ner a negative reply is implied in the 
following question: have any of the 
rulers or of the Pharisees believed on 
him? In this interrogation, the Phar- 
isees seem to be referred to, as a class 
distinct from the rulers. But the rulers 
were those whose official rank gave 
them distinction, while the Pharisees 
were those of more private station. It 
is as though they had said : ' have 
any of the Sanhedrim, or of the Phari- 
sees who have no official rank, but 
whose opinions are entitled to great 
weight, believed on him?' These ques- 
tions are insidiously proposed to these 
officers, in order to dispossess their 
mind of the favorable impressions made 
upon them by the words of Jesus. As 
to what is here interrogatively asserted 
that none of the rulers or Pharisees 
had believed on Jesus, they were doubt- 
less unacquainted with the discipleship 
of Nicodemus, as they certainly were of 
that of Joseph of Arimathea (see 19 : 
38). Had they been fully aware, how- 
ever, of the sentiments which these men 
and others of their class (see 12:42) 
entertained for Jesus, we could not look 
for scrupulous exactness of language, 
in persons laboring under such high 
excitement as they Avere at this time. 
They would naturally speak of the uni- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VII. 



175 



49 But this people who know- 
eth not the law are cursed. 

50 Nicodemus saith unto them, 
( f he that came to Jesus by night, 
being one of them,) 

51 9 Doth our law judge any 

/Ch. 3:2. 
g Dc. 1:17;&17:8, &c.;&19:15. 

versal rejection of Jesus by the chief 
men of the nation in exaggerated terms, 
in order to produce a greater effect 
upon the officers, who had brought 
back this favorable report of Jesus. 

49. But this people, &c. This con- 
temptuous reference to the people, in 
contrast with what has just been said 
of the rulers and Pharisees, was intend- 
ed to still further influence the officers 
against the claims of Jesus. Knoweth 
not the law, i. e. understand not the 
Mosaic code, and have no knowledge 
of the Scriptures. Are cursed, i. c. 
doomed to punishment, or as Doddridge 
paraphrases, are cursed with judicial 
blindness. Bloomfield interprets : "as 
to this rabble who are ignorant of the 
law, they are a parcel of poor wretches" 
Alford regards the words as not a for- 
mal ban upon the followers of Jesus, 
but merely a passionate expression of 
contempt. There is hardly any pas- 
sage in the gospels, which presents in 
stronger colors the arrogance and pride 
of the rulers and Pharisees. While 
they openly express the most sovereign 
contempt for the common people, they 
arrogate to themselves a perfect knowl- 
edge of the law (see N. on Matt. 23 : 
13), and claim to be its authentic inter- 
preters. Richly did they deserve the 
tremendous woes pronounced against 
them by our Lord, on the day of his 
taking a final leave of the temple (Matt. 
23 : 13-39). 

50, 51. In view of their infuriated 
and unjust course of procedure against 
Jesus, Nicodemus now ventures to ex- 
postulate with them and to protest 
against their illegal doings. Doddridge 
finds in the question which he here 
proposes, a severe sting, that while the 
rulers professed such a knowledge of 
the law and zeal for it, they either 



man, before it hear him, and know 
what he doeth ? 

52 They answered and said 
unto him, Art thou also of Gali- 
lee ? Search, and look : for h out 
of G-alilee ariseth no prophet. 

h Is. 9: 1, 2 ; Mat. 4 : 15; ch. 1: 46; ver. 41. 

knew not or regarded not its plainest 
precepts, so far as justice was demand- 
ed of them as a court of judicature. 
The law to which Nicodemus here re- 
fers, is that portion of it pertaining to 
civil rights and duties. In accordance 
with its spirit and express provision, 
the weak and friendless, as well as the 
great and influential, were entitled to a 
full and impartial hearing, before judg- 
ment was pronounced. See Deut. 1 : 
16, 17 ; 19 : IV ; Ezek. 23: 1-3. Judge, 
i. e. condemn. Any man; literally, 
the man arraigned at the tribunal of 
judgment. Before it hear him in de- 
fence, and knoio on valid testimony 
what he doeth worthy of punishment. 
This question of Nicodemus was in 
keeping with the true spirit of the Mo- 
saic law, but there is some reason for 
the remark of Webster and Wilkinson, 
that the feebleness of his defence of 
Jesus has a strong contrast in the fierce- 
ness of the rejoinder of the Pharisees. 
52. Without acknowledging the jus- 
tice of his remarks, the Jews endeavor 
to cast odium on Nicodemus, by insinu- 
ating that he belongs to the Galilean 
party. Their question assumes that 
none but the rude and turbulent Gali- 
leans favor the pretensions of Jesus, 
and hence the espousal of his cause by 
Nicodemus shows that he also is from 
that section of country. Olshausen 
calls it a derisive jest, in order to 
weaken the force of the disagreeable 
truth he had just uttered. It is worthy 
of remark how many negative inter- 
rogatives, or those having that form in 
the original which implies a negative 
answer, are to be found in this chapter. 
Such is the form of interrogation made 
use of by the rulers in their reply to 
Nicodemus. The sense is this : ' Is it 
possible that you, Nicodemus, whom 



17G 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 32. 



53 And every man went unto 
his own house. 



we have regarded hitherto as our sagest 
counsellor, are led away by this strange 
delusion, as though you yourself were 
one of these ignorant and deluded 
Galileans ? It cannot be so. We will 
not believe it.' Also connects Nicode- 
mus with the party spoken of so con- 
temptuously as favoring Jesus. Search 
most thoroughly and accurately. The 
verb is used of that careful and accu- 
rate examination, by which the tracks 
of animals are discovered and traced, 
or lost articles are searched for and 
found. Search and look. When two im- 
peratives are thus joined in construc- 
tion, Winer makes the second to de- 
note the inevitable result of the first : 
search and you will see. The result of 
the search is so certain, that the ex- 
hortation to search is equivalent to 
an invitation to look at or behold what 
is asserted. But I prefer to take the 
second verb, as an emphatic repetition 
of the first. For out of Galilee, &c. 
The mention of Galilee in the derisive 
question put to Nicodemus, suggested 
to them the old and stale argument 
against the claims of Jesus, that he 
was a native of Galilee. Had they 
taken pains to inquire, they might have 
ascertained the truth, as it regarded 
the place of his nativity. But they 
not only assume without investigation 
that he was born in Galilee, but state 
an untruth in asserting that no prophet 
ever arose out of that country. Alford 
notices Jonah of Gathsepher, and that 
greatest of the Old Testament prophets, 
Elijah the Tishbite, and perhaps Nahum 
and Hosea. Their falsification of his- 
toric facts is what might be expected 
from men, who did not hesitate to em- 
ploy false witnesses (Matt. 26:59, 60; 
Mark 14 : 55-57), in order to compass 
the death of Jesus. In the high ex- 
citement produced by the report of the 
officers (v. 46), the inclination of the 
people to Jesus, and the mild expostu- 
lation of Nicodemus, they totally ignore 
or regard as worthy of no mention, the 
few prophets which had arisen in Gali- 



CHAPTER VIII. 

JESUS went unto the mount of 
Olives. 

lee, compared with the numerous seers 
and prophets of Judea. Bloomfield 
thinks that the tense of the verb, im- 
plies, that at no recent date had any 
prophet arisen in Galilee. But this is 
a less satisfactory solution, for even in 
Judea no prophet of recent times had 
appeared, with the exception of John 
the Baptist, in regard to whose claims 
the Sanhedrim was careful not to com- 
mit itself. See N. on Matt. 21 : 25, 26. 
53. And every man went, &c. It is 
clearly implied here that the assembly 
broke up in a tumultuous manner. It 
had been an eventful day. The dis- 
course of Jesus, especially his great ut- 
terance in vs. 3*7, 38, had stirred the 
hearts of his auditors, friends and ene- 
mies, to their lowest depth. High dis- 
putes had arisen among his friends in 
regard to the position, as a religious 
teacher, which should be assigned him. 
Some whose views of him were low 
and selfish, had changed from luke- 
warm friends to bitter and implacable 
enemies (see N. on v. 44). Officers 
were sent to take Jesus, but instead of 
laying hands upon him, stood at a dis- 
tance, and listened in rapt astonish- 
ment to such words as mortal man 
never spoke. The Sanhedrim had been 
thrown into a state of unwonted ex- 
citement at the report of the officers, 
and the stand taken by Nicodemus 
in favor of truth and justice. In 
anger and bitter recrimination, without 
any orderly adjournment, the assembly 
broke up, and each man went to his 
own house. This verse is by many of 
the best critics regarded as belonging 
to the first verse of the following chap- 
ter, the connection requiring the trans- 
lation, but Jesus went to the Mount of 
Olives. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

1-12. The woman taken in adul- 
tery, Jerusalem. This passage is re- 
garded by many commentators as spu- 
rious. Olshausen decides against its 
genuineness, and Tholuck regards it 



A. D. 32.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



177 



as " more than doubtful." Alford 
thinks that " the Evangelist in this soli- 
tary case, may have incorporated a por- 
tion of the current, oral tradition into 
his narrative ; that this portion may 
have been afterwards variously cor- 
rected from the gospel of the Hebrews, 
or other traditional sources ; that being 
seen in early times to be alien from 
John's diction, it may have been by some 
replaced in the synoptic narrative, in its 
apparent chronological place at Luke, 
the end of v. 21, or inserted various- 
ly in this gospel, from the mere fact of 
having dropped out here." It is wanting 
in the Syriac version, as well as in the Al- 
exandrine and Bodleian copies. Bloom- 
field says that it is wanting in fifty-six 
MSS., in thirty-three Evangelisteria, and 
in several MSS. of the Syr., Copt., Sa- 
hidic, Armenian, and Italic versions ; 
nor is it treated of by Origen, Chrysos- 
tom, Theophylact, Tertullian, and others 
of the Fathers. On the other hand, it 
is found in 284 MSS. and six Evangel- 
isteria. In forty others it is found 
with the obelisk. In fifteen others it 
is found with the asterisk, and in eight 
it is found at the end of the gospel. 
The balance of external proof is there- 
fore greatly in favor of the genuine- 
ness of the passage. The variety of 
readings in those MSS. where it is found 
is regarded, however, by many as fur- 
nishing additional evidence that it is 
spurious. But these various readings 
are characteristic of other portions of 
the gospel, and are far from furnishing 
evidence in themselves of the spurious- 
ness of any given passage. The reason 
why it is wanting in so many of the 
early MSS. is supposed to be, that it 
was expunged by copyists and others 
who strangely and unwarrantably fear- 
ed that license for the violation of the 
seventh commandment was contained 
in it. This may have been the reason 
also why the passage is so ignored by 
the Fathers and other ancient commen- 
tators ; not that they themselves doubt- 
ed its genuineness, but were apprehen- 
sive that it might be perverted by 
others, on account of the slightness of 
the rebuke administered by our Lord 
to the woman. It will probably remain 
vol. III.— 8* 



through time a disputed question as to 
its genuineness ; but we think that no 
candid reader, who looks at the whole 
scope of the narrative, can fail to dis- 
cern satisfactory evidence that it is a 
part of that record which the Spirit of 
inspiration has given for our instruction. 
The general style is like that of the 
Evangelist ; it comports with the char- 
acter of these priests and rulers to be 
trying Jesus with difficult and ensnaring 
questions ; his conduct ou this occasion 
and treatment of the woman harmo- 
nize with his known character and some 
of his express declarations (see v. 15 ; 
3 : 17 ; 12 : 47 ; Luke 9 : 56 ; 12 : 13- 
15 ; 19 : 10, cited by Webster and Wil- 
kinson); and besides this there is far 
more probability in itself that a genuine 
passage should be omitted in some 
MSS., than that a story should be fabri- 
cated and foisted into MSS. as genuine. 
Stier well sums up the internal evidence 
in its favor: "The narrative in itself 
was assuredly not such as could have 
been invented ; it exhibits no traces of 
having been apocryphal ; betrays no 
marks whatever of fiction ; on the con- 
trary, it is throughout, and especially on 
the stooping down and writing upon the 
ground, as original as it is in harmony 
with the spirit and mind of Jesus." 

As to the ground above given for its 
being found wanting in so many MSS., 
if it is the true one, certainly it must 
have arisen from a radical misconcep- 
tion of the words of Jesus to the woman, 
and of the great lesson which he de- 
signed to inculcate. This will be more 
fully shown in the comment on our 
Lord's words to her, when she was dis- 
missed from his presence. I am fully 
convinced that the balance of authority 
and critical argument is in favor of its 
genuineness, and shall proceed to ex- 
plain the passage in detail, remarking 
in the outset, however, that its expo- 
sition in some of its parts, is attended 
with much difficulty. 

1. This and the following verse are 
found in many MSS. which omit the 
narrative of the woman taken in adul- 
tery. There can be little doubt, there- 
fore, in regard to their genuineness. 
This furnishes additional testimony to 



17 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



2 And early in the morning he 
came ao'ain into the temple, and 



all the 
and he 
them. 



people came unto him 
sat down, and taught 



the fact that some narrative or circum- 
stance must be here interposed, for the 
transition from v. 2 to v. 12, is too 
abrupt to allow us to suppose that they 
are to be immediately connected in the 
narration. Jesus went unto the mount 
of Olives. This is the only place where 
John speaks of this mount by name. In 
18 : 1, he simply says that Jesus " went 
forth with his disciples over the brook 
Cedron ; " while the three other Evange- 
lists speak of his going forth to the 
" mount of Olives." But this cannot 
be advanced as an argument of any 
weight against the genuineness of the 
verse. Jesus often retired from the 
city to this mount for meditation and 
prayer, either spending the night in the 
open air, or else enjoying the hospitali- 
ty of some friend and follower who re- 
sided there or in its vicinity. There is 
here a slight contrast with the preced- 
ing clause, " every man went unto his 
own house" Jesus, who had no house, 
nor " where to lay his head," went forth 
from the city to the mount of Olives. 

2. Early in the morning. This shows 
his zeal and faithfulness in the work of 
instructing the people. This practice 
of our Lord to return at an early hour 
into the city, is corroborated by Mark 
11 : 20. A comparison of these pas- 
sages throws light upon the extreme 
hunger with which he approached the 
fig tree (Mark 11 : 12-14), he having 
left Bethany too early to take his 
morning meal. All the people came 
unto him. They doubtless expected 
him to resume his public work of in- 
struction, and hence repaired at an 
early hour to the temple to hear him. 
This ready zeal on his part to commu- 
nicate instruction, and the strong de- 
sire of the people to listen to his teach- 
ing, constitute the reason, doubtless, 
for the insertion of this fact in the pres- 
ent narrative, since nothing is said of 
the contents of hi3 discourse. The 



3 And the scribes and Phari- 
sees brought unto him a woman 
taken in adultery ; and when they 
had set her hi the midst, 



word rendered people, is different from 
the one employed in vs. 20, 31, 40, 49 
of the preceding chapter, where the 
word refers to the masses or throngs 
who attended the feast. There was 
doubtless on this day a diminution of 
the number present, the festival being 
now ended, and many having left the 
city that morning for their country 
homes. It may be presumed, however, 
that in consequence of the remarkable 
discourse of Jesus on the preceding 
day, many even of the country people 
remained in the city to attend further 
upon his ministry. The term by which 
they are now designated, is the collec- 
tive peopjle, in contradistinction from 
the word used in the preceding chapter, 
signifying crowds, multitudes, throngs of 
people. This shows that the assemblage 
of persons who gathered together thus 
early to hear him, was more homo- 
geneous in its character, and was 
doubtless composed mostly of those 
who were sincere inquirers after 
truth. It w r ill be seen that the persons 
who opposed Jesus on this day, are al- 
ways characterized by the appellation 
Jews. He sat down after the custom of 
public teachers. See 1ST. on Matt. 5:1. 
We find in 7 : 37, that he stood and 
preached, his object at that time being 
to make himself heard, if possible, by 
the whole multitude. The company 
whom he now addressed was more or- 
derly and quiet. 

3. The scribes and Pharisees not be- 
ing able to lay violent hands upon him, 
through fear of the people, now change 
their tactics, and begin to ply him with 
insidious questions, hoping thereby to 
entangle him, so that some ground of 
accusation might be found against 
him. Scribes and Pharisees. The 
same class of persons are referred to, 
who in v. 32 of the preceding chapter 
are designated " Pharisees and chief 
priests ;" in v. 45, " chief priests and 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



179 



4 They say unto him, Master, 
this woman was taken in adultery, 
in the very act. 



Pharisees ;" and in v. 48, " rulers and 
Pharisees." They were members of the 
Sanhedrim, who in united body or in 
smaller companies, were thenceforth 
watching him, and seizing every oppor- 
tunity to compass the end which they 
had in view, namely his death. Stier 
contends that these persons were pri- 
vate individuals of the learned caste, 
who had made themselves extemporary 
accusers, and who regarded the occur- 
rence as a welcome opportunity for 
laying a snare in the presence of the 
people to entrap Jesus. But the argu- 
ment by which he seeks to support 
this opinion, that the chief rulers would 
not have referred such a question to 
Jesus as to a higher tribunal, is not of 
much weight, for it may be presumed 
that they acted in the capacity of pri- 
vate individuals, and not as members 
of the supreme council of the Jewish 
people. Besides this, if Jesus were the 
true Messiah, his authority would be 
far above theirs, in all matters which 
pertained to the civil or religious law. 
In thus approaching him, they ostensi- 
bly yield for a moment to his claims as 
a religious teacher and expounder of 
the law, in order thereby the more ef- 
fectually to compass his death, or ren- 
der him obnoxious to the people. In 
the midst of the people who were then 
in attendance upon his teaching. Their 
interruption of his discourse was im- 
pertinent and rude. So confident were 
they that he would fall into the snare 
thus artfully prepared, that they chose 
an occasion in which there would be 
the greatest publicity given to the 
transaction. 

4. Master ; literally, teacher, the idea 
being conveyed that here was a case, 
which would test his claim and qualifi- 
cation to be a public teacher of religion. 
They were so sure of success, that they 
address him in courteous terms, in 
order to render more deep and lasting 
the disgrace which awaited him. See 
Matt. 22: 16, 24: Mark 12: 14: Luke 



5 a Now Moses in the law com- 
manded us, that such should be 
stoned : but what say est thou ? 

«Le. 20:10;I>e. 22:22. 

20 : 21, 28. The malignant cunning 
and hypocrisy of these men, stand out 
in bold relief, such as hardly find a 
parallel in the history of man. The 
heavenly purity and innocence of 
Jesus Christ, seem to have come in 
contact with their diabolical craft and 
malignancy, in order by contrast to 
show how utterly antagonistic and ir- 
reconcilable were the two great princi- 
ples of light and darkness, referred to 
in 1 : 5. Was taken, &c. This crime 
was of frequent occurrence at their 
feasts. In the very act. Although the 
word in the original refers to a stealth- 
ful act, as theft, fraud, adultery, yet the 
question in the present instance was 
free from all doubt as to the fact of the 
woman's guilt. Nothing stood in the 
way of an open and immediate decision. 
5. Xow Moses in the law, &c. The 
penalty of adultery was death, and a 
j comparison of Levit. 20 : 10, with Deut. 
22 : 21, makes it quite evident that 
stoning was the kind of death prescrib- 
ed. But what sayest thou? The pro- 
noun in the original is emphatic, and 
places Jesus in strong contrast with 
Moses in the preceding verse. It would 
seem to hint that the teachings of Jesus 
were antagonistic to those of the He- 
brew lawgiver. The literal transla- 
tion is, therefore what sayest thou ? 
which brings out more distinctly the 
insidious question. It was of such a 
nature that a reply either in the affirm- 
ative or negative, would involve him in 
difficulty. If he decided against the 
death penalty, he would be regarded as 
abrogating the Mosaic law. On the 
other hand, if he decreed that she 
should die, he might be accused to the 
Romans, who had taken away from the 
Jewish courts the power of capital 
punishment. This extreme severity of 
judgment would also render him un- 
popular with the people, as one dispos- 
ed to visit offences with the utmost 
rigor of the law. Alford in opposition 
to this view, that a political snare was 



180 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



6 This they said, tempting him, 
that they might have to accuse 
him. But Jesus stooped down, 
and with his finger wrote on the 
ground, as though he heard them 
not. 



laid for him, whereby he might become 
obnoxious to the Roman authorities, 
adduces the example of Stephen who 
was put to death by the Jews. But 
the case is not in point. The death of 
that proto-martyr was effected by an 
infuriated mob, and not by a calm and 
deliberate legal decision. Had the 
Jewish Sanhedrim possessed this power, 
they would not have run the hazard of 
the acquittal of Jesus, by bringing him 
before Pilate's bar; but would have 
pronounced sentence themselves upon 
him, and hurried him away to speedy 
execution. It is evident from the 
manner in which the Mosaic statute re- 
specting the punishment of adultery is 
here referred to, that for some reason 
or other, it had fallen into disuse, and 
was practically abrogated. This may 
have resulted in part from the fre- 
quency of the crime, especially among 
the powerful and influential, and the 
severity of the Mosaic penalty which 
rendered the execution of the statute 
a thing of rare occurrence, even when 
the power to inflict death resided in 
the Jewish tribunals. 

6. We are here distinctly informed 
of their real design in proposing this 
question. It is strange that Olshausen 
can see in this transaction no attempt 
to embarrass or entangle Jesus, and 
that he should, therefore, take tempt- 
ing, in the sense of a " well-meaning 
desire to gain information," as in Matt. 
22 : 35. There is a marked difference 
between the spirit and temper with 
which the lawyer approached Jesus, 
and the proud and captious spirit with 
which these persons presented the 
offending woman to our Lord. Alford 
thinks that this question belongs to the 
last days of our Lord's ministry, syn- 
chronizing with similar questions put in 
the synoptic gospels. See Matt. 22 : 
15-22 ; 23-33 ; 34-40, also the parallel 



7 So when they continued ask- 
ing him, he lifted up himself, and 
said unto them, b He that is with- 
out sin among you, let him first 
cast a stone at her. 

o De. IT : 7 ; Eo. 2 : 1. 



passages in Mark and Luke. But this 
constitutes no valid reason against sup- 
posing the question to have been put to 
him, in the time and manner here re- 
ported by John. ISo one surely will 
presume to say, that these insidious 
questions were proposed only in the 
very last days of his ministry. What 
more natural and appropriate time for 
this ensnaring question than now, 
when they had just been baffled in 
their attempts to forcibly apprehend 
him. There can be no doubt that this 
narrative is recorded in its proper 
chronological place by John. Might 
have to accuse him either to the people, 
or to the Romans, as the nature of his 
reply might furnish opportunity. This 
puts it beyond doubt, that the design 
of their question was malevolent, and 
not as Olshausen says, " to gain infor- 
mation." 

Wrote upon the ground. Various 
explanations have been given of this 
passage. It has been thought by some 
expositors to have been a symbolical 
act, indicative of his power to write or 
promulge a law, that should supersede 
the Mosaic code. Others suppose that 
it was intended to designate his power 
to acquit or condemn those who 
brought this accusation against the 
woman ; and that all were eventually 
to come before his bar of judgment, 
where every question would be finally 
adjudicated. But these interpretations 
are fanciful and far-fetched. Still less 
tenable is their view, who suppose that 
Jesus wrote words indicating the par- 
ticular sins of each of the woman's 
accusers, reading which they were so 
conscience smitten, that when he pro- 
nounced the words : He that is without 
sin among you, &c. they stole away 
convicted and self-condemned. How 
could particular words be written on a 
paved floor, and one which was kept 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



181 



8 And again he stooped down, 
and wrote on the ground. 

scrupulously clean ? Stier regards the 
general sense to be, that there was 
much recorded against them all, which 
he would rather bury in silence ; and that 
this gesture intimates what he afterwards 
said (Matt. 22 : 18), why tempt ye me, 
ye hypocrites ? The interpretation of it 
in brief would then be, ' the matter 
concerns me not, I will know nothing 
of it judicially.' So Olshausen : "Jesus 
first showed them that such matters did 
not belong to him (just as in Luke 12: 
14) ; and afterwards, when they pressed 
him more urgently, he pronounced no 
sentence concerning her, but indirectly 
rebuked the accusers themselves." So 
Tholuck well says : " The writing or 
drawing on the ground, was in the 
ancient world as among us, the sign of 
profound meditation and of abstraction 
from all that is going on around ; also 
of irksomeness, which, occupied with 
nothing external, is absorbed in the 
train of thought which passes within. 
Jesus consequently, expresses in this 
way, first of all, that he is giving no 
heed to the question. And wherefore ? 
Probably on the same ground as in 
Luke 12 : 14, because he is not willing 
to interfere in decisions on questions of 
civil law." This is substantially the 
opinion of Neander, Webster and Wil- 
kinson. Such also is Luther's view: " Our 
Lord means to say, why do you ques- 
tion me ? and will not favor them with 
a word, turns himself in another direc- 
tion, and will not attend to them nor 
answer them." Such I conceive to be 
the simple and obvious interpretation. 
It was designed to be a symbolic act, 
strongly expressive of the disregard 
with which he might treat all questions 
of this sort, intended to draw him away 
from the legitimate object of his minis- 
try, and embroil him in disputes and 
discussions pertaining to the adminis- 
tration of the civil law. The expres- 
sion, as though he heard them not, is an 
unnecessary gloss, and is justly italiciz- 
ed by our translators. If a comment 
of this sort were at all proper to be in- 
troduced into the sacred record, it would 



9 And they which heard it, c be- 

c Eo. 2 : 22. 

have been better, as Prof. Crosby re- 
marks, to have added, as not caring to 
argue with them. When they continued 
ashing him, and manifested their deter- 
mination to draw from him some reply 
to their question. This was highly 
characteristic of the rude impertinence 
and disrespect, with which these bad 
men interrupted Jesus in his discourses, 
and pressed upon him their frivolous and 
ensnaring questions. He lifted tip him- 
self, i. e. he stood, or sat erect as be- 
fore. 

7, 8. He that is without sin, &c. This 
is one of the most profound and search- 
ing remarks to be found in the whole 
gospel. ' Who are you that ye should 
be so clamorous for the meting out of 
punishment to this woman? Have you 
no sins of your own to be repented of? 
Is it your appropriate task to sit in 
judgment upon your fellow-men, as 
though you yourselves were perfect and 
deputed of God to do this? He that is 
without sin among you, let him first cast 
(literally, be the first to cast) a stone at 
her. Otherwise, look to your own 
hearts, inspect your own conduct in 
the light of God's law (see Matt. 5 : 
28, 32), and be less solicitous in respect 
to the exact degree or kind of punish- 
ment to be meted out to your fellow- 
men.' Alford refers this freedom from 
sin, not to sin in general, nor yet to the 
sin of adultery in particular, but to the 
sin of uncleanness generally. But his 
argument against referring it to sin in 
general, on the ground that the Phari- 
sees can hardly be supposed to have 
held themselves sinless, may be met by 
referring it not so much to what they 
really were, and knew themselves to be 
in this respect, as to what they pretend- 
ed to be in the eyes of the common 
people. See Luke 18 : 11, 12. As it 
regards the objection urged against 
this view, that our Lord would thus re- 
quire an innocence, which no judge or 
accuser could lay claim to, the senti- 
ment is not dissimilar to the rule laid 
down in Matt. 7 : 1-5, where it is clear- 
ly shown, that no one is a fit critic or 



182 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



ing convicted by their own con- 
science, went out one by one, be- 
ginning at the eldest, even unto 



judge of others' sins, who has not first 
discerned his own faults and striven to 
correct them. Our Lord intends by no 
means to teach, that judgment cannot 
be pronounced upon transgressors until 
the judge has himself attained to im- 
maculate purity and innocence ; but his 
words are aimed against the lynx-eyed 
vigilance with which the sins of others 
are ferreted out, and brought to light, 
and the blindness which at the same 
time is manifested in regard to personal 
demerit ; against an undue severity in 
pronouncing judgment upon others, and 
a corresponding lenity in regard to 
that which should call forth the sever- 
est self-condemnation. As it respects 
the wisdom of his reply, in avoiding the 
snare which they had set for him, we 
may compare it with the answer which 
he made in regard to the tribute money 
(Matt. 22 : 15-22)— a great truth being 
advanced, by which the question pro- 
posed and all similar ones might be 
easily solved. After they had taken 
all due measures to reform their own 
heart and conduct, and thus render 
their example worthy of imitation, there 
would be comparatively little difficulty 
in executing the laws against bold and 
open transgressors. A general refor- 
mation, from the rulers down to the low- 
est and most ignorant of the people, 
was a duty at that time much more ur- 
gent and imperious, than the decision 
of nice legal technicalities. Let him 
first cast a stone, does not imply the ac- 
tual infliction of the punishment here 
spoken of, for that was to be judicially 
administered ; but it is equivalent to, 
let him condemn, or pass sentence of con- 
demnation upon her, that she shall be 
stoned. The words at her, are literally 
upon her, reference being had to the 
recumbent position of the criminal, who 
was probably thrown on the ground to 
receive his punishment. In v. 59, the 
expression is literally at him, our Lord 
being in a standing posture. The ex- 
pression in the present instance, con- 
forms to the punishment administered ac- 



the last : and Jesus was left alone, 
and the woman standing in the 
midst. 

cording to judicial and prescribed form ; 
in v. 59, to the punishment inflicted by 
an infuriated mob, casting stones at 
the victim of their rage as he was pass- 
ing along. And again he stooped, &c. 
He thus indicated that he had no fur- 
ther reply to make to their question. 
This throws light upon the meaning to 
be affixed to the act of writing upon 
the ground in v. 6. In both instances, 
abstraction from the questioners and 
an occupation of the mind with other 
thoughts are undoubtedly intended. 

9. There was a secret but powerful 
energy accompanying the words of Je- 
sus, which so smote their consciences, 
that they stole away one by one, the 
eldest and most hardened taking the 
lead, and left the woman alone with 
Jesus. Tholuck takes the word ren- 
dered eldest, in the sense of first in 
rank, and finds no reference to a with- 
drawal in the order of rank, but simply 
the retirement from his presence of all 
ranks, the highest as well as the low- 
est. But while rank may have been 
implied in the expression, the general 
usage of the word by John (see 2 John 
1:3; 3 John 1), attaches to it the 
idea of age. The word last, would of 
course conform in the sense of young- 
est, to the idea contained in eldest, with 
which it stands opposed. I therefore 
prefer the natural and obvious sense. 
If such deep conviction of sin was flashed 
in upon them by the potent words of 
Jesus, that they all to a man stole 
away from his presence, there is noth- 
ing strange in the fact here asserted, 
that the eldest and leading persons, 
upon whose consciences the sins of 
years lay with crushing weight, should 
be the first to retire. Convicted by 
their conscience, or consciousness of 
sin. The faculty of conscience, is the 
power of approval or disapproval, which 
a man has over his moral acts. If his 
actions are right, conscience pronoun- 
ces a verdict of approval ; if wrong, 
the verdict is one of censure and con- 
demnation. But conscience through 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER YIII. 



183 



10 When Jesus had lifted up 
himself, and saw none but the 
woman, he said unto her, Wom- 
an, where are those thine accu- 
sers ? hath no man condemned 
thee? 



long indulgence in sin, oftentimes be- 
comes torpid and inactive (see 1 Tim. 
4:2; Tit. 1:15). It is the office work 
of truth to arouse the conscience, to 
produce conviction of sin, and to lead 
the soul to Christ. In the case before 
us, the power of conscience was excit- 
ed to no ordinary degree of activity ; 
but deplorable result — the convicted 
persons left the only Being who could 
forgive sin, and thus through life car- 
ried with them the despairing remem- 
brance of this hour, an earnest of 
what awaited them, when conscience 
should be fully aroused beyond the 
grave, and enter upon its retributive 
work. Isa. 50 : 11. Tholuck quotes 
Calvin approvingly, that these persons 
may have hurried forth in order to 
avoid a second rebuke, which they had 
reason to apprehend, when our Lord 
should raise himself a second time from 
his stooping posture. Was left alone, 
so far as the accusers of the woman were 
concerned. The people to whom he had 
been preaching when thus interrupted, 
were present (see v. 12). Standing in 
the midst, i. e. in full sight of all. The 
scene is now one of the greatest inter- 
est. Xo uninspired writer would have 
dared to conjecture how it was to end; 
and this is a great argument in favor 
of the genuineness of the whole passage. 
If any portion of God's word has the 
stamp of divinity impressed upon it, 
from the simplicity, purity, and heaven- 
ly sublimity of its sentiment, this pas- 
sage has the divine mark. Here was a 
woman who had committed a sin, 
deemed by all nations one of the great- 
est turpitude, and who had been ex- 
pressly brought into the presence of 
Jesus for him to pronounce sentence 
upon her. On the other hand was 
One who was infinitely pure, and who 
could not look upon sin without the 
deepest abhorrence, but whose mission 



11 She said, No man, Lord. 
And Jesus said unto her, d Neither 
do I condemn thee : go, and e sin 
no more. 



fZLu. 9:5G;&12:14; ch. 
e Ch. 5 : 24. 



17. 



to this world w r as not to condemn it 
(3 : 1*7), but to save it from sin and 
eternal death. Matt. 18 : 11 ; Luke 
19: 10. In this interview thus sud- 
denly and unexpectedly brought about, 
is Jesus to act the part of a condemn- 
ing judge, or an almighty Saviour (Isa. 
63 : 1) ? Is he to furnish an example of 
his avenging wrath against the sinner, 
or of his forgiving love? TV r e shall all 
reply, that the latter will be more in 
keeping with the merciful nature of 
his mission and office. And yet it was 
doubtless because he did not send this 
poor woman from his presence, under 
the weight of a condemning sentence 
couched in the most seA'ere terms, that 
the whole narrative has been expunged 
from so many of the early MSS. A 
vain and baseless fear was doubtless 
indulged, that if suffered to remain in 
the sacred text, our Saviour might be 
thought to have compromised with this 
sin, or at least to have treated it as a 
comparatively light offence. It will be 
seen in the comment on v. 11, how ill- 
founded and unwarrantable was this 
apprehension. 

10, 11. Our Lord continued to draw 
characters upon the ground, until all 
the woman's accusers had gone forth. 
The fact that he withdrew from them 
his observation, made it easier for them 
to steal away. " He did not continue 
to fix his eyes upon them, being very 
far from desirous to take pleasure in 
their humiliation before the people, but 
rather being grieved that their persist- 
ence to press the question upon him 
had enforced from him this revelation." 
Stier. None but the woman. His dis- 
ciples and the people, however, were 
present. See IS", on v. 9. Where are 
those thine accusers ? This question 
was not put for the sake of informa- 
tion, but to call her attention to the 
self-condemnation of her accusers, and 



184 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



12 Then spake Jesus again un- 
to them, saying, ; I am the light 



/Ch. 1:4, 5, 9; &3: 



19; & 9:5; & 12: 35, 
46. 



also what he was about to say. Her 
eyes were probably cast down in shame 
and conscious guilt. Hath no man (of 
all thy accusers) condemned thee? i. e. 
pronounced judgment, passed a con- 
demning sentence upon thee. She said, 
No man, Lord. She was therefore le- 
gally free, or to use a technical phrase, 
their voluntary withdrawal from the 
tribunal to which they had conducted 
her as her accusers, was a virtual nolle 
prosequi. Nothing remained then for 
our Lord, but to dismiss her from his 
presence. Neither do I condemn thee. 
Reference is unquestionably had in 
these words of our Lord, to a judicial 
condemnation, like that alluded to in 
the preceding question. It is a simple 
disavowal in the hearing of the people, 
of its being his mission to act the part 
of a judge, in regard to an offence cog- 
nizable in the Jewish courts of justice. 
No inference whatever can be drawn 
from his words, that he did not disap- 
prove of her sin, or that she was unde- 
serving of punishment. It is a strange 
perversion of the obvious sense of the 
passage, to seek to elicit from it a sense 
so utterly at variance with our Lord's 
well-known abhorrence of all sin, and 
especially his strict interpretation of 
the law pertaining to the violation of 
the seventh commandment (Matt. 5 : 
27-32). This is placed beyond a doubt 
in the following clause, where it is not 
said, go thy way in peace, or thy sins 
are remitted, but simply and touchingly, 
go, and sin no more. The enormity of 
her sin is here clearly recognized, and 
she is admonished not to repeat it. 
What effect these gracious words had 
upon the woman, we know not; but 
the hope may be reasonably indulged, 
that through the atoning blood and 
forgiving love of Him into whose pres- 
ence she had been thus strangely usher- 
ed, she was brought to repentance, and 
joined the company of those pious and 
faithful women who followed him to 
the cross (Luke 23 : 27 ; Mark 15 : 41), 



of the world : he that folio weth 
me shall not walk in darkness, 
but shall have the light of life. 

and who after his ascension, awaited in 
the company of the apostles the prom- 
ised descent of the Spirit (Acts 1 : 14). 
12-59. Jesus continues his public 
teaching. Jerusalem. Commentators 
are divided, as to the connection be- 
tween this and the closing verses of the 
preceding chapter. Tittmann, Olshau- 
sen, Alford, and some other critics of 
note, connect it with 7 : 37, 38. He 
had there in view of the pompous pro- 
cession with which water was brought 
from the fountain of Siloah, declared 
himself possessed of the waters of life, 
to which all were invited to come and 
drink. Now he draws his theme of 
discourse from another usage of the 
feast. It is said by Dr. Jahn on au- 
thorities adduced by him (see also Wet- 
stein cited by Alford), that " in the 
court of the women, lights were burnt 
during every evening of the feast, in four 
candlesticks of gold, said to be 50 cu- 
bits high, while the priests and Levites 
standing on the fifteen steps of the in- 
ner court, sang the songs of degrees, 
viz. Psalms 120-134. They accompa- 
nied these songs with instruments, and 
the chief men of the nation were at the 
same time dancing in the women's 
court, with burning torches in their 
hand, while the women looked on from 
a retired apartment surrounded by a 
sort of latticed enclosure." How natu- 
ral, amidst such circumstances, is the 
allusion of our Lord to the light, which 
proceeding from two large golden chan- 
deliers, Wetstein says, was sufficient 
to light up all Jerusalem. But Jesus 
said, I am the light of the world, not a 
light which blazes up and illumines for 
a while, and then expires in utter dark- 
ness, but one which shall never be 
quenched or dimmed ; not a light to 
Jerusalem only, but to the whole 
world. The connection with 7 : 37 is 
then so natural and apposite, that 
some excellent expositors, in addition 
to those above named, are strongly in- 
clined to the belief that the incident 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



185 



related in vs. 3-11, took place on some 
preceding day of the feast, and that 
this discourse of our Lord, either im- 
mediately preceded or followed the 
proclamation made in 7 : 37, 38. Op- 
posed to this view, however, are 
weighty objections. One is that at the 
close of the preceding day, which was 
the last great day of the feast, Jesus is 
said to have gone to the mount of 
Olives, and on the next day early in 
the morning, to have repaired again to 
the temple and resumed his public 
teaching (see vs. 1, 2). But the dis- 
course of our Lord upon which we have 
now entered, is abruptly closed by 
an attempted act of violence, which 
compels Jesus to leave the temple 
and secrete himself for a season. In 
other words, the two discourses record- 
ed in chaps. VII. and VIII. are brought 
to a close in far different circum- 
stances, and cannot, therefore, have 
been pronounced on the same day. It 
is no valid objection to this, that the 
Pharisees are present at this second 
discourse (see v. 13), whereas they are 
just before said through conviction of 
conscience to have left him (v. 9) ; for 
the persons mentioned in v. 13, may 
have been other Pharisees, perhaps of 
less note, yet actuated by the same bit- 
ter hatred to him, and equally alert to 
find some ground of accusation, by 
which he might be removed out of the 
way. I am of opinion, therefore, that 
the narrative of the woman taken in 
adultery is recorded by John in the 
right place chronologically considered, 
and that the discourse, in which Jesus 
proclaims himself the Light of the 
world, was pronounced on that same 
day, which was the one following the 
day on which the festival was closed. 
The allusion to the Light would be as 
apposite on this day as on the pre- 
ceding one, since the splendid chande- 
liers with their flood of light would be 
readily recalled to the memory of the 
people. Tholuck denies this, and sup- 
poses that our Lord's language was 
suggested by the rising sun. But the 
sun must have been quite high in the 
heaven, before the close of the incident 
recorded in vs. 3-11 ; and certainly if 



the temple was illuminated each even- 
ing during the feast which had just 
been brought to a close, the fact could 
not have so passed from the mind of 
the people as not to be easily recalled 
by the words of our Lord. 

12. Said again. He now resumes his 
discourse to the people, which had 
been interrupted in the manner related 
in vs. 3-11. lam the light of the world. 
It was in view of this great utterance 
of our Lord, that John made the decla- 
ration recorded in the very beginning 
of his gospel, 1 : 9, on which see Note. 
See also N. on Matt. 5 : 14. Our Lord 
here declares most expressly, that his 
office was not to enlighten the Jews 
only, but the whole world of mankind. 
See Luke 2 : 32. The allusion to the 
golden chandeliers lighted up on each 
night of the feast of tabernacles, has 
been referred to. If, as we believe, 
this discourse was preached on the day 
following the last and great day of the 
feast, the allusion to the artificial light 
would bo well understood by the peo- 
ple. Bengcl thinks that light is here 
contrasted with the works of darkness, 
as seen in the woman taken in adultery. 
However the allusion may have been 
to the artificial light above referred to, 
or to the rising sun, or to moral light 
by way of contrast with the sin of the 
woman, the idea is that the only true 
light adequate to dispel the shades of 
sin and death, is the Lord Jesus Christ. 
In thus declaring himself the light of 
the world, he virtually proclaimed his 
Godhead, since it is the prerogative of 
God, that light dwelleth in Him. Com- 
pare Ps. 27 : 1 ; Isa. 60 : 19, 20 ; Dan. 
2 : 22 ; 1 John 1 : 5. He that followeth 
me, i. e. believes on me and obeys my 
word. Bengel says that he shows by 
this declaration, that adultery is in no 
manner approved by him, although he 
did not condemn the adulteress who 
had just gone from his presence. So 
FJeger remarks : "He himself secures 
his dealing with the sinful woman from 
all perversion." Tholuck says that " by 
speaking of following him, he intro- 
duces the image of a guiding star, by 
which we are led on our pathway, and 
he who follows him receives the light 



186 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



13 The Pharisees therefore said 
unto him, ' Thou bearest record 
of thyself ; thy record is not true. 

14 Jesus answered and said 

g Ch. 5 : 31. 

of life into the soul." In darkness, i. 
e. in the way of sin and death. But 
shall walk, &c. The same idea is here 
repeated conversely in the positive 
form. This twofold form of expression 
is common to John. Light of life, i. e. 
the true knowledge of God and his 
ways, which shall lead to eternal life. 
Perhaps also the idea may be imparted 
of enduring light, or that which shall 
never become extinct. Some find an 
allusion here to the great principle in 
the vegetable kingdom, that light is 
necessary to the life and growth of 
plants. Shall have is not opposed to 
immediate possession of the light of 
life, as soon as the condition of disci- 
pleship is complied with ; but the idea 
is, that the full fruition of the promised 
blessing is reserved for the believer 
beyond the grave. 

13. The Pharisees now interrupt him 
with the charge of his bearing witness 
of himself. TJierefore, in view of what 
he had j ust claimed to be. Thou bearest 
record (or art a witness) of thyself, i. e. 
you testify in favor of yourself. They 
do not in express terms deny his claim, 
but seek to throw discredit upon it, by 
averring that it is supported by no tes- 
timony save his own. Thy record 
(literally thy testimony') is not true, i. e. 
its truth is not substantiated by valid 
evidence. Perhaps they have their eye 
on his own words (5 : 31), which they 
turn against him, overlooking, how- 
ever, his express declaration, that his 
testimony was supported by other wit- 
nesses, viz, : John the Baptist, his own 
miracles, the Scriptures, and the Father 
himself. The saying was doubtless a 
proverbial one, and while he conde- 
scended to admit its application to 
himself in 5 : 31, by way of accommoda- 
tion to Jewish prejudices; yet now, 
when it is pressed upon him with the 
design to impeach his veracity, and 



unto them, Though I bear record 
of myself, yet my record is true : 
for I know whence I came, and 
whither I go ; but *ye cannot tell 
whence I came, and whither I go. 

h See ch. 7 : 28 ; & 9 : 29. 



render him self-convicted as unworthy 
of all credit, he solemnly avers that 
even though he were dependent solely 
upon his own testimony, yet he knew 
it to be true. There is therefore no 
real disagreement between the words 
of Jesus in 6 : 31, and his reply here 
to the same saying, as uttered by the 
Pharisees. 

14. Though 1 bear record of myself 
As our Lord drew near to the close of 
his earthly mission, his language in re- 
gard to his own preexistent nature, and 
his power to bestow spiritual blessings 
upon those who believed in him as the 
Son of God, became more and more 
full and explicit. He now declares 
that although he bore witness of him- 
self, yet it was to be received as truth, 
for as none but himself knew whence 
he came, so no other one could testify 
to the truth of his affirmation. In v. 
18, he condescends, howeyer, to appeal 
to another, whose testimony all would 
acknowledge to be final. For I know, 
&c. Jesus adduces his perfect knowl- 
edge of his origin, as an argument in 
favor of the truth of that which he had 
affirmed. He had come from the God 
of truth, and after his earthly mission 
was accomplished, he would return to 
the bosom of his Father (see N. on 
1:18), where from the ages of eternity 
he had dwelt in the closest and most 
indissoluble union. Hence although he 
bore witness of himself, his divine ori- 
gin which he alone knew, was of itself 
a sufficient attestation to the truth of 
his declarations. As Alford well re- 
marks, "this reason binds his testimony 
to that of the Father, for he came forth 
from the Father (10 : 28), and was re- 
turning to him." The adverb translated 
whither, is one which contains in it also 
the idea of rest or permanent residence 
in the place to which our Lord was soon 
to go. This imparts great emphasis to 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



187 



15 'Ye judge after the flesh; 
* I judge no man. 



the declaration, showing that it was 
not a transient state of glory and ex- 
altation to which he was about to 
ascend, but one which was to continue 
forever. But ye cannot tell, &c. Lit- 
erally, but ye Jcnoio not, &c. They knew 
nothing of him, except as they were 
divinely taught, and therefore could 
oppose to his testimony of himself no 
contradictory or invalidating evidence. 
Hence to his full and perfect knowledge 
of his glorious preexistent state, and 
of the equally glorious return to it, 
when his earthly mission was ended, is 
opposed in a way calculated to humble 
their pride, the profound ignorance of 
his adversaries, in regard to every thing 
which pertains to the subject. But 
this ignorance, resulting as it did from 
their obstinate rejection of Him as their 
great Teacher and Illuminator, so far 
from excusing their unbelief in him, 
rendered it culpable to the highest de- 
gree. 

15. Ye judge after the flesh, i. e. ac- 
cording to the external appearance and 
with harsh judgment. This is advanced 
as a reason, why they rejected his tes- 
timony respecting himself. They look- 
ed only upon his external poverty and 
low condition of life. All that he said 
respecting his divine origin and claim 
to the Messiahship, was regarded by 
them as the wild dreams of a fanatic, 
or the pretensions of an impostor. I 
judge no man as yet, that function of 
my Messianic office being reserved for 
the future. So Doddridge, Aiford, 
Bengel, and others. Such also was 
the interpretation of Augustine. Stier 
takes this as the sense : " Like you, 
after the flesh, in the sense in which ye 
judge, I judge no man." But this is 
opposed by the next clause, and yet if 
I judge, where the interpretation of 
Stier would compel us to supply after 
thefesh, which would give the very op- 
posite sense to that which is intended, 
and contradict the affirmation my judg- 
ment is true. The words I judge and 
if I judge, must in the nature of the I 



16 And yet if I judge, my 

iCh. 7:24. 
h Ch. 3 : IT ; & 12 : 47 ; & IS : 36. 

case refer to the same kind of judgment, 
namely, one which is righteous. Hence 
Olshausen does not quite reach the pre- 
cise meaning in the first member by 
his paraphrase: "I teach peacefully 
and misconstrue no one, but ye assail 
me with your sentences of condemna- 
tion ; if, however, ye in this manner 
oblige me to judge, I pass a true sen- 
tence, for I judge in the strength of 
God." Tholuck attaches to the kind 
of judgment referred to in the words / 
judge no man, the same evil sense which 
it has in Matt. 7:1, and thus para- 
phrases the passage : " that Christ has no 
pleasure in judging, inasmuch as when 
pleasure is felt in it, it is the infallible 
sign of a heart of impurity ; that he 
judges, however, but only in fellow- 
ship with the Father ; it springs there- 
fore from motives which are objective 
and pure." But this interpretation has 
the same fault as that of Stier, above 
referred to ; it takes the word judge, 
in the clauses, I judge no man, and yet if 
I judge, in totally different senses, 
whereas the connection obviously de- 
mands, that the word in both clauses 
shall have one and the same sense. It 
is undoubtedly true, however, that 
while our Lord disclaims all judgment 
for the present, his office of Judge 
being that upon which he will enter at 
a future period, he at the same time 
places in striking contrast the censo- 
rious judgment and fault-finding spirit 
of these Pharisees, and his own peace- 
ful, charitable temper ; so that in addi- 
tion to the idea that he had not yet as- 
sumed the office of Judge, it is also im- 
plied that he does not judge after the 
flesh, in the manner of their judgment. 
'But this is implied rather than directly 
taught in the passage, the plain mean- 
ing of which is, that while the present 
was the time in wdiich his adversaries 
might indulge in their unrighteous 
judgments, yet his time to judge lay far 
in the future ; but if he anticipated 
that season, and should even then at 
the present moment pronounce judg- 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



judgment is true : for 1 1 am not 
alone, but I and the Father that 
sent me. 



Ver. 29 ; cli. 16 : 32. 



ment, such was his relation to the 
Father, that his judgment would be 
true and righteous. This makes the 
connection clear and obvious. 

16. And yet if I judge ; or better, 
but if I also judge, i. e. if I assume 
the office of sitting in judgment as you 
now do. My judgment is true. This 
is opposed to the judgment of the 
Pharisees, which was after the flesh, 
and therefore false. Some expositors 
refer the judgment here spoken of, to 
his own character and mission, which 
they had so misconceived, but in refer- 
ence to which his judgment was true. 
But the testimony which he bore, was 
respecting himself and the Father ; the 
judgment was that which was to be 
passed upon men, as is evident from 
the preceding context. There is, how- 
ever, a close and intimate connection 
between the bearing witness in v. 14, 
and the judgment spoken of in the 
present verse. It was in consequence 
of the witness which he bore to his 
high preexistent nature, that their cen- 
sorious and false judgment was evoked. 
He also was to sit in judgment — not 
in the immediate present — but at a 
future period. Yet if he were to pass 
judgment upon them immediately, his 
judgment would not be after the 
flesh, but in accordance with the prin- 
ciples of eternal truth. We find a sim- 
ilar close connection between his office 
work of bearing witness to the truth, 
and of final Judge, in 5 : 30, 31. As 
Stier remarks : " it was the judging ele- 
ment in his testimony, which excited 
their hatred and opposition." In re- 
gard to the present tense, which instead 
of the more common future here fol- 
lows the hypothetical clause if I judge, 
it is employed to denote a general 
truth. The assertion here is that 
whenever Jesus judges, his judgment 
is true. For I am not alone furnishes 
a reason why his judgment was true. 
He was not alone in forming it, but 



17 m It is also written in your 
law, that the testimony of two 
men is true. 

m De. 17 : G ; & 19 : 15 ; Mt. 18 : 1G : 2 Co. 13: 
l;He. 10:28. 

acted in full concurrence with the Fa- 
ther. This is expressed more fully 
dnd positively in the next clause, but I 
and the Father that sent me agree in 
the judgment which we pronounce. 
The words that sent me, indicate our 
Lord's divine mission and origin. Thus 
this great truth, that Jesus Christ came 
from God, which was so offensive to 
them, was constantly kept before their 
mind. Their fierce opposition did not 
cause him to make the least abatement 
in his claims to divinity. 

17. Having thus asserted that his 
judgment is the same as that of the 
Father, and by implication that their 
testimony fully agrees, our Lord ap- 
peals to their law, and shows that its 
condition in requiring two witnesses, is 
fulfilled in the twofold testimony borne 
of him by himself and the Father. It 
is written in your law. The reference 
is to Deut. 1*7 : 6 ; compare also Deut. 
19:15. Your law; literally, the law, 
(viz.) yours. The second person is here 
used, because the Pharisees arrogantly 
appropriated to themselves the law, as if 
it were peculiarly their own, and claimed 
to be its especial conservators and in- 
terpreters. See v. 5, where they say 
"Moses commanded us." We are not 
to gather from this, that our Lord un- 
dervalued the law, or spoke contempt- 
uously of it. He came not to destroy 
or abrogate it, but to fulfil it (Matt. 5 : 
17). But in order to give point and 
force to his argument, he accommo- 
dates his expression to the arrogant 
assumption of his adversaries, that the 
law was peculiarly their own inheritance. 
It is as if he had said : ' your own law, 
in which you so much boast, forbids 
the rejection of testimony supported by 
two witnesses. On your own ground, 
therefore, I will convict you of sin and 
unbelief in rejecting my claim to be 
your Messiah.' That the testimony of 
two men is true. The word rendered 
that, should be omitted in the transla- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



189 



18 I am one that bear witness 
of myself, and n the Father that 
sent me beareth witness of me. 

19 Then said they unto him. 
Where is thy Father ? Jesus 

wCb. 5:37. 



tion, as it is a direct quotation, al- 
though not in the very words of the 
original. It is not here implied that 
two -witnesses may not perjure them- 
selves, or that their testimony even 
when honestly given will be always 
true in every particular, but simply 
that such testimony is legal, and suffi- 
cient to convict or acquit. This law 
of evidence rendered the testimony 
in his favor by his Father and himself 
so valid, that they had no excuse what- 
ever for rejecting him. 

IS. Although as Son of God, he was 
under no necessity of appealing to any 
further testimony than what proceeded 
from his own mouth, yet Jesus conde- 
scends, in accordance with this princi- 
ple of human law that two witnesses 
are necessary to legally establish the 
truth of any declaration, to declare 
fully and unequivocally who the two 
witnesses are, to whom he appeals in 
justification of his claims. The tes- 
timony advanced by these witnesses 
was unimpeachable, for none could be 
better acquainted with his character 
and mission than himself and the Fa- 
ther who sent him, and who was his 
co-witness. / am one that bear wit- 
ness, i. e. one of the two witnesses 
legally required to substantiate a fact. 
Beareth witness of me, by the miracles 
wrought by me in his name, and also 
by the divine voice heard at my bap- 
tism (Matt. 3 : IV ; Mark 1:11; Luke 
3 : 22). The requirements of the Mo- 
saic law in regard to valid evidence, 
were therefore fully met in the case of 
Jesus. 

19. The question here proposed to 
Jesus, does not so much imply igno- 
rance of the nature of his affirmation 
respecting his Father, as scorn and dis- 
pleasure at the apparent presumption 
of his language. It is taking a low and 
incorrect view to refer the question to 



answered, ° Ye neither know me, 
nor my Father : p if ye had known 
me, ye should have known my 
Father also. 

o Ver. 55 ; ch. 16 : 3. 
p Ch. 14 : 7. 



his earthly Father, for they were too 
well acquainted with the usage of this 
term as applied to God, to make so 
gross a mistake. They assume, how- 
ever, ignorance of his true meaning in 
order to draw him out further on the 
subject, hoping thereby to find occasion 
to accuse him of blasphemy. Where 
is thy Father ? ' Make known to us this 
fact, and we can the better determine 
whence thou art. 1 Perhaps the idea is 
sarcastically implied of a desire to see 
and judicially interrogate this Father 
of Jesus, or as we should say, to put 
him on the witness' stand in regard to 
the nature and mission of Jesus. The 
most intense hatred and scorn were 
concentrated in this brief question, 
which accounts for the severe and ap- 
palling reply of our Lord, that they had 
no acquaintance whatever with him or 
his Father. Ye neither Tcnoio me, &c. 
Their question on its very face evinced 
their total ignorance of God, although 
they were the last persons to admit this. 
Our Lord, however, goes further, and 
charges them with equal ignorance of 
himself, which could not have been 
true, had he not been in his own unde- 
rived being, equal with the Father. 
This is rendered still more plain and 
emphatic by the following declaration, 
that a knowledge of him involves also 
a knowledge of the Father. If ye had 
known me, that I was the image of the 
Father (Heb. 1 : 3), and sent of Him 
into the world, ye should have known 
my Father also. Thus our Lord avers 
distinctly that the knowledge of the 
one embraces the knowledge of the oth- 
er. It would be difficult to find a more 
lucid and unanswerable argument than 
this, for the supreme divinity of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. The tense in the 
verb had known, refers the knowledge 
spoken of as something which might 
and ought to have been attained to, in 



190 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



20 These words spake Jesus in 
q the treasury, as he taught in the 
temple: and r no man laid hands 
on him ; for s his hour was not yet 
come. 

a Ma. 12: 41. r Ch. 7:30. 

sCh. 7:8. 

the beginning of our Lord's ministry. 
If at that time, they had admitted the 
claims of Jesus to the Messiahship, and 
believed on him, they would have ar- 
rived at a knowledge of the Father, 
which would have precluded such an 
inquiry as they had just made. The 
whole argument of our Lord, is based 
on his essential union and equality with 
the Father. They are introduced as 
co-witnesses of the preexistent glory 
and divine mission of Jesus, and the 
knowledge of the one is necessary to, 
and implies the knowledge of the 
other. 

20. In the treasury. See N". on 
Mark 12 : 41. The word treasury, is 
here put for the court of the women, 
where the treasure-chests were placed. 
In this much frequented place, did our 
Lord discourse with the people and put 
to silence these malignant and cavilling 
Pharisees. The words as he taught in 
the temple, should be so collocated as 
to read, as he was teaching in the tem- 
ple in the treasury. As we have no ac- 
count that our Lord had changed his 
position, it was doubtless to this part of 
the temple, that the woman taken in 
adultery had been brought. The place 
where Jesus was teaching, as Webster 
and Wilkinson well observe, corrobo- 
rates the authenticity of the narrative in 
vs. 2-1 1 . Although he taught in a place 
frequented by such crowds, and uttered 
such open reproof to the Phai-isees, no 
man laid hands on him, &c. This does 
not imply that they were not eager to 
apprehend him, or desisted to make the 
attempt, but that they did not succeed 
in effecting their purpose for the reason 
given in the following clause, for his 
hour was not yet come (see N. on 7 : 8, 
30). It was not the Father's will that 
he should yet be delivered into the 
hands of his enemies. 



21 Then said Jesus again unto 
them, I go my way, and ' ye shall 
seek me, and " shall die in your 
sins : whither I go, ye cannot 
come. 

tCh. 7:34; & 13:33. 
u Ver. 24. 



21. This discourse which continues 
on to v. 59, is not to be referred to 
another time and occasion, but is con- 
nected with the preceding one, there 
being doubtless some pause between the 
two. Stier calls this " his last great con- 
versation with the Jews, in which is ex- 
hibited the most rigorous conflict and 
opposition." Then or therefore, shows 
that this discourse is resumed from the 
conversation before recorded. The word 
again, refers to the repetition of the 
saying now about to be uttered. See 
7 : 34. I go my way. He now solemnly 
declares that he is soon to depart, and 
leave them to the consequences of their 
rejection of him as the Messiah. He 
had incidentally in v. 14, referred to 
his departure, but now he repeats it in 
the most emphatic language. Ye shall 
seek me. See N". on 7 : 34. The words 
shall die in (or on account of, as Prof. 
Stuart interprets) your sins, correspond 
to shall not find me in 7 : 34, and serve 
to interpret those words. Christ was 
soon to return to heaven. Into that 
place of holiness, none but those who 
had clean hands and pure hearts (Ps. 
24 : 3, 4), who walked uprightly and 
worked righteousness,- could enter (Ps. 
15:1-5). As these rulers and Phari- 
sees through impenitence and unbelief, 
had rejected the only way by which 
they could be made clean from their 
transgressions, they would die in their 
sins, and be forever excluded from the 
bliss and purity of heaven. Thus they 
would never be permitted to come 
again into the presence of Him whom 
they were now rejecting. Whither I 
go ye cannot come, is the inevitable and 
natural result of their dying in their 
sins. This shows that there is no re- 
pentance or restoration to God's favor 
beyond the grave. 

22. Tlie Jews, i. e. the rulers and 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



191 



22 Then said the Jews, Will 
he kill himself? because he saith, 
"Whither I go, ye cannot come. 

23 And he said unto them, x Ye 
are from beneath ; I am from 



cc Ch. 3 : 81 

y Ch. 15 : 19 ; & 17 : 1< 

z Ver. 21. 



Uo. 4 : 5. 



Pharisees. Will he kill himself? 
Suicide was regarded by the Jews as 
one of the most heinous sins, and the 
souls of self-murderers were thought to 
descend to the lowest and most dismal 
part of Hades. The form of the ques- 
tion implies the expectation of a nega- 
tive reply (see N. on 4 : 33), as though 
they had added, ' we cannot think that 
ho will kill himself.' Yet this was but 
an ironical mode of asserting their be- 
lief that he contemplated suicide, and 
was about to go to a place of horror 
and darkness, which they, the children 
of Abraham, would never enter. Their 
reply is therefore in a vein of deep and 
malignant scorn, far in advance of the 
question they put to him on his first 
declaration (7 : 35), that he was about 
to go, whither they could not find him. 
Because he saith ; more literally, in that 
he saith, the clause assigning the mo- 
tive or ground of the preceding in- 
quiry. 

23. Our Lord apparently takes no 
notice of their taunting inquiry, yet in 
reality he replies to it, by assigning the 
true reason, why they could not be 
with him after death. It was not be- 
cause he was about to put an end to 
his own existence, thus shutting him- 
self out from their fellowship in heaven, 
but because they were from below (i. e. 
of the earth and affected by its carnal 
ends, aims, and pursuits), while he was 
from above, i. e. from heaven. The 
inference which they would not be 
slow to draw from his words was, that 
he would return to the place whence 
he came, namely, to the bosom of his 
Father ; while they would return to the 
earth, or by force of the obvious anti- 
thesis, they would descend to that dark 
and gloomy place in Hades, that abyss 
of woe and despair, which they had 



above: y je are of this world; I 
I am not of this world. 

24 x I said therefore unto you, 
that ye shall die in your sins : 
" for if ye believe not that I am 
he, ye shall die in your sins. 

a Ma. 1G : 16. 



tauntingly marked out for him in the 
question they had proposed. The rea- 
son why they must remain forever dis- 
severed from him, was founded on the 
endless separation between the good 
and the bad, which would take place 
beyond the grave. Ye are of this 
world, &c. These clauses explain the 
sense in which the words from beneath 
and from above, in the preceding sen- 
tence, are to be taken. The former of 
those phrases denotes the carnal aims 
and purposes, the hatred to God and 
all holy beings, the selfishness, moral 
pollution, alienation from every thing 
holy and good, which mark the charac- 
ter of the wicked ; the latter, I am not 
of this world, is expressive of heavenly 
desires and nspirations, of sympathy 
with God's will and purpose, of obedi- 
ence to the divine law, in short, of the 
holy emotions and heavenly aspirations 
which are characteristic of all good 
beings. Between these classes of per- 
son? — those from beneath or of this 
world, and those from above or who are 
not of this world — there is a gulf fixed, 
which in the eternal world will never be 
passed. This is the great idea of our 
blessed Lord, in these awful words 
which he addressed to his malignant 
&,nd scoffing enemies, and should be 
earnestly pondered over by all who are 
in this life preparing for the destinies 
of eternity. 

24. The principle laid down in the 
preceding verse, is here advanced as a 
reason why he said that they should 
die in their sins. They were possessed 
of such worldly and corrupt disposi- 
tions, that unless renewed by the grace 
of God, they would die in impenitence 
and unbelief. As this moral change 
could result only from belief in him as 
the Messiah, their rejection of him 



192 



25 Then said they unto him, 
Who art thou ? And Jesus saith 
unto them, Even the same that I 
said unto you from the beginning. 

26 I have many things to say 



JOHN. [A. D. S3. 

and to judge of you : but b he that 
sent me is true ; and c I speak to 
the world those things which I 
have heard of him. 



proved the truth of his declaration, 
that they would die in their sins. This 
is distinctly affirmed in the following 
clause, for if ye believe not that lam he, 
ye shall die, &c. I am he; literally, i" 
am, on which form of expression, see 
N. on 4: 26. 

25. Who art thou ? This inquiry is 
not to be imputed to their ignorance ; 
for the declaration, / am (equivalent to 
I am he), was a Messianic one well un- 
derstood by the Jews. It was a ques- 
tion of scorn and contempt, that a per- 
son whom they regarded as an impostor, 
should pretend to lay claim to the Mes- 
siahship. This appears more clearly in 
the original, where the pronoun thou 
is emphatic, and contrasts his low con- 
dition with the high birth and rank of 
their expected Messiah. It may also 
have been intended to draw forth from 
him some response, which they might 
make the basis of a judicial charge 
against him. Even the same, &c. As 
it was the obvious purpose of his ad- 
versaries to entrap our Lord, his reply 
is couched in terms intentionally ob- 
scure. Pretending not to understand 
his declaration respecting his Messianic 
office (v. 24), they demand a plain and 
open avowal of his real character. 
This he does not condescend to give 
them, but merely says that he is Avhat 
he has ever declared himself to be. The 
words the same, are unnecessarily sup- 
plied in our common version, and 
doubtless arose from a wrong transla- 
tion of the word rendered from the be- 
ginning, and the verb said, which does 
not refer so much to what is once 
spoken or said, as to general speech or 
discourse. In the original, the word 
rendered even, is so collocated, as to be- 
long to the verb. The conjunction 
that, in our English translation is in the 
original a pronoun, and should be ren- 
dered what or that which. The trans- 
lation should therefore be : first of all 



bCh. 7:28. 



cCh. 8:32: & 15:15. 



(i. e. in very truth) what lam also say- 
ing unto you, i. e. the very person I 
have ever declared myself to be ; or as 
Alford says, "in very deed the same 
which I speak unto you." This same 
acute critic proceeds to say, "He is the 
Logos. His discourses are the revela- 
tion of himself. And there is a special 
propriety in this : — When Moses asked 
the name of God, ' / am that which I 
am,'' was the mysterious answer ; the 
hidden essence of the yet unrevealed 
One could only be expressed by self- 
comprehension ; but when God mani- 
fest in the flesh is asked the same ques- 
tion, it is 'I am that which I speak : ' 
what he reveals himself to be, he is." 
Such is substantially the exposition of 
Stier, Webster and Wilkinson, and 
Tholuck. Olshausen, by altering the 
punctuation, and uniting vs. 25, 26, ex- 
plains the passage thus : " first I have, 
as I plainly tell you, much to say to you 
in the way of censure and rebuke, and 
thus I am your serious admonisher." 
But in reaching this exposition, Olshau- 
sen seems to have taken an unwarrant- 
able liberty with the text ; and the re- 
ply also loses much of its point and 
sententious force, by reducing it to the 
simple assertion, that he was their ad- 
monisher and reprover. We can hardly 
believe that our Lord, at this crisis of 
his controversy with them, abated in 
the least his high claim, or sought to 
divert the argument from the great fact 
to which he had just before given ut- 
terance, that He and his Father were co- 
witnesses to his preexistent nature and 
divine mission, and that therefore his 
record of himself was true (v. 14). 

26. 1 have many things to say and to 
judge of you, i. e. I could say much of 
your pride, unbelief, and cavilling tem- 
per, and could easily convict you of 
sin. "Like a judge with us, he would 
first give his reasons for his judgment 
and then pass it." Webster and Wil- 



A . D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



193 



27 They understood not that 
he spake to them of the Father. 

28 Then said Jesus unto them, 
When ye have d lifted up the Son 



dCh. 3:14; & 12:32. 
e Eo. 1 : 4. 



kinson. Compare 1G : 8, where to the 
Spirit which our Lord was to send, is 
committed the conviction of sin, right- 
eousness, and judgment, to which refer- 
ence is here doubtless made. But he that 
sent me is true, stands connected with 
the preceding context, as the reason why 
he will not turn aside from the great 
object of his mission to parley with 
them. The absolute truth of the Fa- 
ther, so opposed to their falsehood and 
spiritual blindness, renders it more 
suitable that he should speak to the 
world (i. e. to mankind at large, as op- 
posed to the Pharisees), these things 
which he had heard from Him. As the 
Logos and Revealer of the ways of 
God to men, he had things to say of 
vastly greater moment than those top- 
ics, which served only to satisfy the 
vain curiosity of these wicked and de- 
signing Pharisees. That this is the 
general sense of this verse, is clear 
from the antithesis between the many 
things which he had to say to them (or 
could say, if he had not other and 
weightier duties to perform connected 
with his mission), and his public teach- 
ing, here denominated speaking to the 
xoorld. This antithesis is rendered the 
more striking, by the different verbs 
employed in the two clauses ; the one 
in the former member signifying to 
talk, chat, converse, in a conversational 
way ; the verb in the second member, 
having the more grave meaning to dis- 
course, relate, make known, declare. 
Prof. Crosby suggests this as the con- 
nection : " I have much to say and to 
judge about you, and you will oppose 
me, but he that sent me is true never- 
theless." But the ellipsis, " and you 
will oppose me," is somewhat harsh, and 
the explanation seems to overlook the 
obvious antithesis between the not 
speaking to them, and the speaking 
to the world, above referred to. 
Yol. III.— 9 



of man, e then shall ye know that 
I am he, and f that I do nothing 
of myself : but 9 as my Father 
hath taught me, I speak these 
things. 



/Ch. 5:19,30. 



Ch. 



11. 



27. They understood not, &c. It is 
strange that they did not refer the 
words he that sent me, to the Father, 
for in v. 18, he had expressly declared 
that it was the Father who had sent 
him. But their ignorance of this iden- 
tity between the two, is here positively 
declared by the Evangelist, and we 
must receive it, unless with some ex- 
positors, we suppose that reference is 
had to their wilful and persistent de- 
termination not to understand or ad- 
mit the truth that God who sent him 
was his Father, or in other words, that 
he was the Son of God. Tholuck re- 
fers the ignorance predicated of them 
to the matter, and consequently to their 
unbelief of the great truth revealed. 
So Olshausen remarks on the passage, 
that the Jews did not apprehend the 
meaning of the words of Christ. This 
view is perhaps the freest from objec- 
tions, and answers all the demands of 
the context, especially of that which 
follows, which speaks of the effect of 
his death in bringing them to a recog- 
nition of him as the Messiah (see N. on 
v. 28). 

28. In this verse which follows in 
immediate connection v. 26, our Lord 
hints at the kind of death which would 
be inflicted on him. When ye have 
lifted up, i. e. elevated upon the cross. 
That this is the meaning is clear from 
the form of the words, ye have lifted up. 
In no other way did his enemies lift up 
or elevate him, than upon the cross of 
death, which their malice and false 
charges before the Roman governor 
prepared for him. There is no doubt, 
however, but that they mistook the 
sense in which he intended the expres- 
sion should be here taken. The verb 
rendered lifted up, is often taken in the 
sense to exalt. See Acts 2 : 33 ; 5:31; 
Luke 1:52; Matt. 23:12. In this 
sense the Jews doubtless understood 



194 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



him to use the word in the present in- 
stance. It was" in their estimation a 
sort of braggart assertion, that he would 
soon be exalted to the Messianic throne, 
and the whole nation pay him homage 
and obedience. There was indeed in 
the remarkable words which he utter- 
ed, a claim to honor and exaltation, 
such as no Jew who looked for a tem- 
poral Messiah ever conceived of; but 
it was a declaration that the way to 
this glorification to which he was to be 
exalted as Lord and Sovereign of the 
universe, was through pain, ignominy, 
and death, even that of the cross. Then 
shall ye know, &c. Their future recog- 
nition of his Messiahship, is here con- 
trasted with their present ignorance of 
his relation to God as his Son. This 
ignorance was so great and inveterate, 
that the Evangelist deemed it proper to 
refer to it (v. 27), in order that his read- 
ers might know the exact state of the 
Jewish mind, in regard to the sublime 
truths to which he was then giving ut- 
terance. This ignorance or persistent 
blindness to his claims, our Lord de- 
clared should be removed when they 
had lifted up the Son of man. How 
was this verified by the event ? Mani- 
festly by the wondrous circumstances 
attending his crucifixion (see Matt. 27 : 
51-54 ; Mark 15 : 38, 39 ; Luke 23 : 45- 
49) ; by his resurrection and ascension ; 
and above all by the outpouring of the 
Spirit on the day of Pentecost. In 
view of these great manifestations 
many would acknowledge his Messiah- 
ship, some being led to this by the 
teachings and drawings of his grace 
through the promised Spirit ; others 
compelled thereto by the awful judg- 
ments, which befell the nation for its 
rejection of him as their promised Mes- 
siah. This very prediction of the kind 
of death which he should suffer from 
their hands, was doubtless in itself a 
means of bringing some present to a 
knowledge of his true character. The 
lamentable fact, however, cannot be 
denied, that the mass of these unbe- 
lieving and hardened Pharisees, even 
when overwhelmed with the judgments 
which befell their city and nation, and 
convinced of their great error in put- 



ting Jesus of Nazareth to death, were 
yet so hardened as to refuse to ac- 
knowledge his Messiahship, and there- 
fore died in their sins, according to the 
prediction of Jesus (vs. 21, 24). But 
these even, although in this life they 
refused to yield to the overwhelming 
evidence of his divine mission, would 
be compelled thereto, when they should 
see Him coming to judgment, invested 
with all the glories of the Father. Thus 
the declaration of Jesus that they 
shall not always remain in ignorance 
as to his true character, will in the end 
be verified in the history of all those 
who heard him, and of all who shall 
come after them, possessed of a like 
character of unbelief. It is worthy of 
remark that the words, ye shall know 
that I am he (literally that I ani), cor- 
respond with if ye believe not that I 
am he in v. 24. Evangelical or saving 
faith was there referred to ; here, abso- 
lute knowledge or an intellectual per- 
ception of the Messiahship of Jesus, 
which although it is found as an ac- 
companiment of true faith, is neverthe- 
less by itself wholly inoperative and 
dead. The word that, in the clause that 
I do nothing of myself (i. e. indepen- 
dent of my 'Father's will, see N. on 5 : 
19), is thought by some to be erroneously 
supplied by our translators, on the 
ground that the sentence is co-ordinate 
with the preceding one, and not at all 
dependent thereon. But there is clearly 
the dependence of thought, for the 
knowledge had a twofold reference, one 
to the Messiahship of Jesus (ye shall 
know that I am he); the other to his 
inseparable union with the Father, that 
I do nothing of myself &c. Both these 
great truths, the one referring to his 
office as Messiah, the other to his es- 
sential divinity, are declared to be that 
of which his adversaries, after they 
had lifted him up on the cross, should 
have the most full and perfect knowl- 
edge. There is a noticeable inter- 
change of the words / speak, for / do in 
the preceding member. See N. on v. 
25. The work of Christ was to reveal 
the Father to men, and hence his 
words and work are often used inter- 
changeably. The verb speak, is the 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER YIII. 



195 



29 
with itie : ' the Father hath not 

h Ch. 14:10, 11. i Ver. 16. 



And h he that sent me is | left me alone ; * for I do always 

those things that please him. 

7: Ch. 4 : 34 ; & 5 : 30 ; & 6 : 3S. 

verb in this clause, although in a past 
tense, embraces, as Stier remarks, " the 
whole extant period since His sending 
into the world, passing onward to the 
great futurity." For I do, kc. The 
filial obedience of the Son is here ad- 
vanced as a reason, why he always en- 
joys his Father's aid and presence. 
Who does not here revert to the testi- 
mony of the Father at our Lord's bap- 
tism : " This is my beloved Son, in 
whom I am well pleased." It should 
ever be borne in mind that this obe- 
dience of the Son, although strictly 
predicable of him only in his Messianic 
office, is to be regarded as proceeding 
from his essential unity with the 
Father ; else, as Olshausen well remarks, 
the declaration here put forth would 
argue a moral union alone, which would 
depend for its perpetuity upon the fidel- 
ity of the Son. The obedience of the 
Son is based upon those immutable 
relations of companionship springing 
from the essential unity of the Father 
and Son, and referred to so emphatically 
in the preceding words is with me, on 
which see ISote. Always doing those 
things that please him, implies in the 
one of whom such language is used, a 
sympathy and fellowship with the 
Father, which can be predicated of no 
being save one who is coequal and co- 
essential with the Father. It is this es- 
sential unity, manifested by the love 
and obedience of the Son to the Father, 
which rendered it impossible for the 
former ever to be forsaken of the lat- 
ter. Hence this clause introduced by 
for, contains the cause or reason of 
what has just been affirmed. 

30. As he spake these words. His 
discourse is introduced as the ground 
of the belief spoken of in the next 
clause. Many believed on him. The 
following context shows that with some 
this was a transient impression of his 
Messiahship, which was soon displaced 
by unbelief and open opposition. Their 
hearts were warmed for a little time 
with his discourse, but like the stony 



same here, as in the first member of 
the sentence in v. 20 ; but the lighter 
signification which the antithesis there 
imparted to it, here gives place to the 
more grave meaning to discourse, de- 
clare, &e. 

29. A new and important truth is 
here announced by our Lord, implied 
indeed in the knowledge to which his 
enemies should attain when they had 
lifted up the Son of man, but not fully 
and formally expressed. He was at 
this time surrounded by his most bitter 
and implacable enemies. The rich and 
powerful were all arrayed against him. 
Yet friendless and deserted as he ap- 
peared to be, he takes occasion to say 
that he is not alone, for the Father, at 
whose appointment he came into the 
world, was with him. The and, with 
which the verse commences, is there- 
fore a general connective. Tie that 
sent hie. It is worthy of remark, how 
frequently this phrase occurs in the 
discourses which our Lord held with the 
Jews. He makes no claim in his Mes- 
sianic office to independent and unde- 
rived power, but always refers to him- 
self as one sent of God to do His will. 
With me. The preposition here de- 
notes in the original the most intimate 
connection and proximity, so that the 
persons thus connected are affected by 
the same action, as though they were 
one and the same. The Being who 
sent Jesus into the world, was in such 
close companionship with him, that he 
shared with him, so to speak, all the 
opprobrium and hostility with which 
his mission was met, and would be 
present to his aid in every danger. TJie 
Father is explanatory of the words he 
that sent me. Hath not left me alone ; 
literally, did not send me forth alone (i. 
e. without his aid and presence), when 
he appointed me to the office which I 
bear. The clause repeats negatively 
the positive affirmation of the preced- 
ing member. This twofold form of as- 
sertion imparts great emphasis to the 
declaration. See N. on 1 : 20. The 



196 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



30 As he spake these words, 
'many believed on him. 

31 Then said Jesus to those 
Jews which believed on him, If 

ZCh. T:31;&10:42;&11:45. 
m Eo. 6 : 14, 18, 22 ; & 8 : 2 ; Ja. 1: 25 ; & 2 : 12. 

ground hearers (Matt. 13 : 20, 21), 
they had no root in themselves, and 
dured only for a while. Stier remarks 
that "their faith was something more 
than that first mentioned in 2 : 23, 24 ; 
more than that of 7 : 31 ; yet as being 
a sudden impulse and excitement, it is 
something less than that recorded in 
10 : 42, as the result of a comparison of 
his words and works, and the testimo- 
nies of John and of Christ." "Whether 
these persons gave open expression to 
their faith, is unknown to us. Their 
fear of the Pharisees, however, renders 
it quite probable that they kept their 
impressions in his favor somewhat to 
themselves. So far as our Lord's knowl- 
edge of their change of views respecting 
him was concerned, it mattered little 
whether they indicated it by any out- 
ward manifestation, or kept it wholly to 
themselves. He was acquainted with 
the thoughts of their heart, and stood 
in no need of any outward profession 
of theirs to know how they were affect- 
ed towards him. 

31. Our Lord now addresses him- 
self directly to the persons referred 
to in the preceding verse. Their faith 
was new-born and weak. They needed 
instruction. Especially was it fit that 
they should be informed of the perma- 
nent nature of true faith, and what was 
necessary to Christian discipleship. 
They were to continue in his word ; 
they were to remain steadfast in the 
doctrines and duties taught by him. 
Then would have been better translated 
therefore, as the words of Jesus were 
spoken in consequence of the change 
of views which he had discerned in 
these persons. If ye continue has ref- 
erence to a permanent belief in him as 
their great Messianic Teacher. The 
word my, in the original is emphatic, 
and opposes our Lord's doctrines and 
precepts to those of the Pharisees. My 



ye continue in my word, then are 
ye my disciples indeed ; 

32 And ye shall know the truth, 
and m the truth shall make you 
free. 



disciples indeed, i. e. my true followers. 
It was continued and steadfast obe- 
dience, and not a mere outward profes- 
sion, which constituted them his true 
disciples. The word indeed, is plainly 
opposed to spurious discipleship, of 
which the world has seen much from 
the days of Christ to the present time. 
32. Ye shall know the truth refers to 
such an experimental or inner knowl- 
edge, as puts away all doubt and mis- 
giving from the mind. The truth is 
used here in a most enlarged sense, re- 
ferring, among other things, to what he 
had told them of his own origin and 
mission, his intimate and essential rela- 
tion to the Father, and also that which 
subsisted between him and his follow- 
ers. The whole truth as taught in the 
word of God, must be believed, in order 
that the soul may come fully under its 
transforming and saving power. The 
truth (through its purifying and trans- 
forming influence) shall make you free 
from the bondage of sin and death (see 
v. 34). Reference is doubtless had to 
the notion entertained by the Jews, that 
the Messiah would free them from the 
Roman yoke, and enable them to tri- 
umph over all their enemies. He now 
promises them freedom, but that only 
which results from obedience to the 
truth. Stier would take the freedom 
here promised in the most enlarged 
sense, as embracing not only freedom 
from sin, and its consequences in the 
eternal world, " but deliverance from 
all the bonds of error and delusion 
which may hold the soul under its in- 
fluence, and emancipation from all hu- 
man ordinances of dogma or discipline, 
from all servile homage to genius, from 
all predominance of human leaders of 
the blind (see 7 : 26), as well as from 
every political yoke borne only under 
constraint." It was remarked by Stolle 
the missionary, that "if all the Jews 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



197 



33 They answered him, n We 
be Abraham's seed, and werenevor 

n Le. 25 : 42 ; Mat. 3:9; ver. 39. 

were kings they would be but slaves ; 
and if all kings made all Jews free, they 
would not yet be free." There is no 
doubt that freedom from sin would be 
followed by the blessed results enumer- 
ated by Stier; yet it is quite certain 
that the sole reference here is to 
spiritual freedom, the same as that 
spoken of in Rom. 8:2; Gal. 4 : 22-31. 
33. A question arises, whether the 
persons here introduced were those re- 
ferred to in vs. 30-32, as believing on 
him ; or the Jewish rulers and Pharisees, 
who from v. 21, had been the speak- 
ers. Tholuck — who adopts the latter 
view, on the ground that it is quite 
improbable, that Christ should have 
charged those whom he had so kindly 
addressed in vs. 31, 32, with purposes 
of murder, and have directed against 
them what may be considered alto- 
gether one of his severest discourses — 
claims that the majority of interpreters 
decide, that those persons resume, who 
from v. 21 on had been the speakers. 
So Calvin says, that " as is common in 
a mixed crowd, a confused response 
was made to Christ." But of the ex- 
positors before me, such as Doddridge, 
Olshausen, Stier, Bengel, Alford, Web- 
ster and Wilkinson, indeed all but 
Bloomfield, consider that reference is 
had beyond all question, to those per- 
sons whom Christ addressed in the 
verses immediately preceding. The 
whole narrative shows this. In v. 36, 
the same proffer of freedom is made to 
these persons, as was offered to those in 
v. 32, on condition of their continuing 
in his word. This shows that there was 
no change in the persons addressed. 
As to the severity of our Lord's dis- 
course to them, the low and sensual 
views which they entertained of the 
glorious freedom into which he would 
introduce them, demanded of him a 
severe reproof; and in regard to the 
other ground of objection advanced by 
Tholuck, namely, the murderous inten- 
tions charged upon them in v. 37, there 
can be no doubt, that many of these 



in bondage to any man : how say- 
est thou, Ye shall be made fr 



ree r 



persons who gave in their temporary 
adhesion to him, relapsed speedily into 
unbelief, and joined themselves to those 
who were plotting the death of Jesus. 
He who knew their hearts, and to 
whom the future was as the present, 
could pronounce with unerring cer- 
tainty upon their position in the great 
contest between light and darkness, 
which was then going on. They wore 
not the less his murderers, because for 
a brief space they yielded to the force 
of his reasonings, and professed them- 
selves his disciples. 

These persons, of whom some at least, 
as our Lord's words clearly show, were 
not disciples indeed (v. 31), seem to 
have been irritated that they were not 
received and acknowledged at once as 
true disciples. The implication that 
they were in bondage, which with their 
accustomed obtuseness in regard to 
spiritual things, they interpreted of that 
which was temporal and political, added 
to their resentment. Forgetful of their 
servitude in Egypt, Babylon, and at 
that very time to the Romans, they in- 
dignantly deny that they were ever in 
bondage to any man. How they could 
have uttered so palpable an untruth is 
inconceivable, unless on the general 
principle, that angry men do not pause 
to consider what they are about to say, 
and in consequence, often give ex- 
pression to sheer fabrications. Some 
regard the reply as being craftily made, 
in order to lead him to speak of 
their bondage to the Romans, a 
theme so unwelcome and distasteful 
especially to the common people. But 
at the present moment, we can hardly 
attribute so mean and malignant a pur- 
pose to the persons addressed, however 
they afterward may have united with 
his enemies to effect his death. Others 
refer the words to their present condi- 
tion, in which they enjoyed so many 
privileges and so many of the forms of 
self-government, that in their judgment 
they could hardly be said to be in bond- 
age. But against this last view, the 



198 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



34 Jesus answered them, Ver- 
ily, verily, I say unto you, "Who- 
soever committetii sin is the ser- 
vant of sin. 



word never, belongs to we be Abraham! 8 
seed, and, as Afford remarks, generalizes 
the whole expression. This same critic 
thinks that they attached some techni- 
cal meaning to the phrase were in bond- 
age, in which their words may have 
been correct. But the simplest and 
most satisfactory solution, is to refer 
their reply to the loose and inconsid- 
erate manner of speaking which char- 
acterizes persons in a state of high ex- 
citement, such as that into which these 
persons were thrown by the answer of 
Jesus. 

We be Abraham's seed was an arro- 
gant boast, for in all the qualities which 
rendered him the friend of God (2 
Chron. 20 : 1 ; Isa. 41 : 8 ; James 2 : 
23), they were deficient, and this 
showed that although they were the 
natural descendants of Abraham, they 
were not in the highest sense his chil- 
dren (see Gal. 3 : 8). Our Lord in v. 39, 
corrects this mistake of theirs, in sup- 
posing that because they were descend- 
ed from Abraham, they were like him, 
the especial favorites of God. How (i. 
e. how in accordance with truth) sayest 
thou? The question is one of surprise 
that he should have uttered such a 
sentiment : ' How can it be said to us, 
the descendants of Abraham, who were 
never in bondage to any man, ye shall 
be made free ? ' Our Lord's words were 
the truth shall make yoii free, but they 
suppress the words the truth, which 
should have served as the key to his 
meaning. This argues an intentional 
misunderstanding, or at least, great 
spiritual dulness, and may account in 
part for the severity of our Lord's 
reply. Webster and Wilkinson refer 
their understanding of our Lord's words 
to a. spiritual bondage, and give to their 
reply the sense : 'We are the children 
of the Father of the faithful, the chil- 
dren of the covenant and the promises. 
How then can we be in ignorance, 
error, or unbelief ? ' But the words 



35 And r the servant abideth 
not in the house for ever : but the 
Son abideth ever. 

o Eo. 16 : 16, 20 ; 2 Pc. 2 : 19. 
p Ga. 4 : 30. 



never in bondage to any man, clearly in- 
dicate that temporal and not spiritual 
servitude was understood by them. 

34. The error into which they had 
fallen, whether intentional or other- 
wise, was so fatal to genuine disciple- 
ship, that our Lord condescends to 
instruct them as to the kind of servi- 
tude to which he alluded. Verily, ver- 
ily. See N. on 3 : 3. Whosoever com- 
mitteth sin ; literally, doeth the sin, 
where the verb denotes the habitual 
practice of sin, and the article refers 
to sin in its most generic nature, out 
of which all offences against God arise. 
Is the servant (or stronger is the slave) 
of sin. He is under its full power and 
influence. Evil habits and inclinations 
usurp such dominion over him, that he 
becomes their abject and willing slave, 
and loses not only the power, but the 
will to become free. This servitude of 
the passions, emotions, and affections, 
to the principle of evil, is often referred 
to in the New Testament (see Rom. 6 : 
16 ; 1 : 23 ; 2 Pet. 2 : 19), and is a sen- 
timent not wholly unknown to heathen 
philosophers. It is said by some that 
the idea of slavery to sin is not found 
in the Old Testament. But the reader 
has only to turn, in proof of the falsity 
of this assertion, to such passages as 
Gen. 4:7; 1 Kings 21:25; Ps. 119: 
133; Isa. 42:/7; 49:24. 

35. There is a striking allusion in 
this verse to the family of Abraham, 
whom they had so boastingly referred 
to as their father. In that family was 
one who was born in a servile condi- 
tion, and who with his mother was cast 
out (see Gen. 21 : 10), while Isaac the 
free-born son,was cherished and brought 
up at home, as the heir of Abraham's 
possessions (Gen. 25 : 5). The applica- 
tion is obvious. Although the Jews 
were Abraham's lineal descendants, yet 
because of their servitude to sin, they 
would be cast out of their spiritual in- 
heritance ; or in other words, the fact 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



199 



36 q If the Son therefore shall 
make you free, ye shall be free 
indeed. 

q Eo. S:2; Ga. 5:1. 
r Ch. 7:19; ver. 40. 



that Abraham was their natural father, 
would be of no more avail to them, if 
they remained the slaves of sin, than 
it had been to the son of the bond wo- 
man. Abidcth not in the house forever, 
i. e. has no permanent dwelling place 
in the house of his master, but is liable 
at any moment to be thrust out, or 
sold to another master. So the expres- 
sion abidcth forever, in the next clause, 
signifies by contrast, a fixed and perma- 
nent residence of the son in the paternal 
house, his future inheritance. The word 
son, improperly commences with a capi- 
tal in our common version, as though it 
referred to the Son of God. It stands 
here opposed to servant, and is gener- 
ically put for all those born to a state 
of freedom, and consequently heirs to 
the paternal inheritance and privileges. 
In the next verse, the word Son, is 
properly capitalized. 

36. The preceding illustration is here 
applied to the case in hand. The son 
has power, with the approbation of 
his father, to free a servant; but the 
servant cannot free himself. If then 
they were slaves to sin, their bondage 
was hopeless, unless the Son of God, 
who had been sent from the Father on 
this errand of mercy, should set them 
free. Such was his power and grace, 
that whomsoever he undertook to free 
would be free indeed (i. e. enjoy a 
freedom, compared with which release 
from temporal bondage is as nothing), 
and entitled to all the privileges of the 
sons of God. Luke 1:12; Rom. 8 : 
14 ; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1,2. Al- 
ford well remarks, that the best com- 
mentary on this verse is Gal. 4 : 19-31. 
It is worthy of note that Isaac was the 
type of Christ, as well in his being the 
son of the free woman, as in the trans- 
action recorded in Gen. 22 : 1-14. In 
regard to the hypothetical clause, if 
the Son shall make you free, it is un- 
like the one employed in 7 : 17, inas- 
much as it lays down a general truth, 



37 I know that ye are Abra- 
ham's seed ; but r ye seek to kill 
me, because my word hath no 
place in you. 

without reference to its being decided 
by the actual result, whether the per- 
sons spoken of shall be made free or 
not. The realization of the condition 
is left in uncertainty, but when it is 
realized the result is declared to cer- 
tainly follow. Indeed, truly, really, as 
opposed to that which is false and fic- 
titious. 

37. Our Lord admits that the per- 
sons whom he is addressing, are Abra- 
ham's seed according to natural descent. 
There is an implied denial, however, 
that they are the spiritual descendants 
of this patriarch. The general train 
of thought is this : ' I know that ye are 
Abraham's seed. I freely admit this 
fact. But ye are possessed of a far 
different temper and spirit than his, 
for ye seek to kill me, and are even now 
planning my death. In the higher 
and more spiritual sense, therefore, you 
can claim no descent from Abraham.' 
In reference to the fact, that such lan- 
guage is addressed to those who in v. 
30 are said to have believed in him, see 
N. on v. 33. The charge here made is 
not of necessity a general one. There 
may have been many of those referred 
to in v. 30, to whom it had no applica- 
tion. Even to those whose faith was 
evanescent, the accusation may have 
been proleptically made of what would 
in future be their disposition, when 
their unbelief became more rank and 
deadly. It is evident that Jesus saw 
in some, if not a majority of them, a 
disposition, which rendered them even 
then, more fit associates of the rulers 
and Pharisees, than of his true and de- 
voted followers. Because my word hath 
no place in you; or more literally, has 
no entrance among you, i. e. has not 
penetrated your hearts. The preposi- 
tion in the original is one, which com- 
municates to the verb the idea of 
subsequent rest in the place whither 
the motion tends, so that the idea of the 
interpenetration of the word is accom- 



200 



JOHN. 



[A. D 



38*1 speak that which I have 
seen with my Father : and ye do 
that which ye have seen with your 
father. 

39 They answered and said 



s Ch. 3 : 



■ 5:19,30: & 14: 10, 24. 



parried also by that of a permanent 
abode of it in the inner man. The 
translation hath taken no possession of 
you, would well express this twofold 
idea of entrance and permanent rest. 
Our Lord makes no direct reference 
here to their sinful and corrupt nature ; 
but assuming this fact, he attributes 
their evil conduct to the rejection of 
the only remedial agent for overcoming 
the incitements of sin, namely, the word 
of truth which he was then dispensing. 
Had they given this a place in their 
hearts, their hostility to him would 
have ceased ; and hence their rejection 
of his word is rightly regarded, as the 
cause of their desire to effect his death. 
The word here spoken of, is the revela- 
tion which he had made of himself as 
the Son of God, comprising also the 
doctrines and duties which are .em- 
braced in the great central truth of 
his Messiahship and divine nature. 

88. Our Lord continues his search- 
ing discourse, by showing how diamet- 
rically opposite are his conduct and 
principles to theirs — he revealing that 
which he had seen with his Father, and 
they doing that which they had seen 
with their father. I speak — ye do. The 
same distinction between speaking and 
doing is here observed as in v. 28, but 
with much greater emphasis, inasmuch 
as they are placed here in direct anti- 
thesis, and are not as there used inter- 
changeably. Christ was the Revealer 
of the ways of God to men. Hence his 
work was to declare the will of his Fa- 
ther. But such was not the office work 
of his adversaries. They acted out the 
works of their father, and thus by their 
deeds declared their true parentage (see 
v. 44). The pronouns / and ye, have 
an emphasis in the original, which can 
only be denoted in English by the stress 
of voice. In regard to the correspond- 
ing phrases, with my Father — with your 



unto him, 'Abraham is our father. 
Jesus saith unto them, " If ye 
were Abraham's children, ye would 
do the works of Abraham. 

t Mat. 3:9; ver. 38- 
u Eo. 2: 28 : & 9 : 7; Ga. 8:7, 29. 



father, the best text reads from your 
father. This would place in strong 
contrast the intimate and essential union 
of the Son and the Father, with the 
fact that the devil, their father, was the 
originating source of their wicked 
deeds. If however the reading follow- 
ed by our translators is to be preferred, 
then the second member must be taken 
in a more restricted sense ; for these 
persons had not abided in a preexist- 
ent state with their father, the devil, as 
our Lord had dwelt from eternity with 
the Father. Have seen in the second 
member, must then be regarded also as 
used in the sense of have learned. In 
thus contrasting his Father with theirs, 
he prepares the way for that appalling 
declaration (v. 44), in which he not 
only denies their Abrahamic paternity 
in the truest, highest sense, but makes 
them the offspring of the devil, the fa- 
ther of lies and all wickedness. 

39. The contrast just drawn betw r een 
our Lord's Father and theirs, w-as so 
pointed, that they could not but feel 
that the latter was referred to in a bad 
sense. Our Lord had acknowledged (v. 
37) that they were Abraham's seed. 
Now he so plainly intimates that their 
father is opposed to his Father, that 
they cannot but perceive that he hints 
at a parentage of theirs, less honorable 
than Abraham, and therefore reassert 
(see v. 33) with warmth, that he and 
no other is their national ancestor. In 
all this we see that our Lord was deal- 
ing with shrew r d and subtle adversaries, 
who would not be driven or drawn 
away from their vantage ground, as 
children of Abraham and entitled 
thereby to rich covenant blessings. If 
ye were Abraham^ children. This is 
reconciled with our Lord's admission in 
v. 37, by taking children, in the sense 
in which Paul used it in Rom. 4: 11, 
12 ; 9 : 7, 8, of Abraham's spirit- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



201 



40 *But now ye seek to kill 
me, a man that hath told you the 
truth, v which I have heard of 
God : this did not Abraham. 



x Yer. ST 



ual seed, or those of like spirit and 
temper with him. It should be noted 
that the word here rendered children, 
is a different one from that translated 
seed, in v. 37, which refers, when placed 
as here in strong contrast with chil- 
dren, to natural descent. Ye would do 
the works of Abraham, i. c. you would 
imitate his character and ready obe- 
dience to God. "Mark how the Lord, 
who elsewhere bases every thing like 
his Apostle Paul, upon faith, here lays 
also stress, like James, upon the evi- 
dence of works! He himself recog- 
nizes and distinguishes the works of 
Abraham!" Stier. 

40. He proceeds to show them, in 
confirmation of what he had just said, 
that their conduct in seeking to kill 
him for declaring unto them the truth, 
is very unlike what might be expected 
from the true children of Abraham. 
Hence the verse begins with the adver- 
sative but, contrasting their conduct 
with the real children of Abraham, 
who would delight to follow in the 
footsteps of their father. A man that 
hath told you the truth. This apposi- 
tional clause serves both as a reason 
why they conspired to kill Jesus, and 
as an aggravation of their guilt, in 
thus seeking the death of one whose 
only crime was, that he frankly and 
fearlessly declared to them the truth 
which he had received of the Father 
to make known to men (v. 28). It 
is worthy of note that our Lord con- 
tinually refers to himself as the great 
Revealer, that is, as one who speaks 
rather than acts. All his works and 
miracles were subordinate to this great 
office of Teacher, being designed sim- 
ply to confirm the truth of what he 
made known in his discourses. In the 
form of expression a man, in which 
our Lord refers to himself, we surely 
need not caution the reader against so 
Unwarranted a conclusion, as that Jesus 



41 Ye do the deeds of your fa* 
tlier. Then said they to hiin- 
We be not born of fornication ; 
z we have one Father, even God. 

y Yer. 26. e Is. G3 : 16 ; & 64 : 8 ; Mai. 1 : 6. 

regarded himself a mere man. He em- 
ploys this word, because he was only a 
common man in their estimation ; and 
to show also, that it was a sin of no 
small magnitude, to proceed malicious- 
ly to compass the death of an ordinary 
man, for the simple fact of his speaking 
the truth. But although our Lord, in 
accommodation to their view of him, 
speaks of himself as a man, yet the fol- 
lowing words which I have heard from 
God, bring out again his high preex- 
istent nature, as Son of God. Stier 
very justly finds in this passage a 
threefold progression : " they would 
kill a man — more than that one who 
had told them the truth — and finally 
truth as derived and transmitted from 
God." This did not Abraham. No act 
or design like this was ever chargeable 
upon Abraham. Alford refers to Gen. 
18: as illustrating the benevolence of 
Abraham's character. The word this, 
is employed not with special reference 
to the desire of the Jews to put Jesus 
to death; but generically for this 
and every similar form of transgres- 
sion. 

41. Ye do the deeds of your father. 
Having thus emphatically denied that 
they evinced themselves to be the true 
children of Abraham, our Lord reiter- 
ates his assertion (see v. 38), that they 
had a father, whose offspring they fully 
showed themselves to be, by doing so 
faithfully and assiduously his works. 
They now begin to perceive the drift 
of his argument, and seek to parry off 
its force by claiming God to be their 
spiritual Father. We were not born of 
fornication, i. e. we were not born of ■ 
a concubine as was Ishmael, but are 
the true descendants of Abraham. This 
first portion of their reply was design- 
ed to convict our Lord of an untruth, 
in denying that they were what they 
claimed to be, the true children of 
Abraham. But in the words we have 



202 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



42 Jesus said unto them, a If 
Grod were your Father, ye would 
love ine : b for I proceeded forth 

a 1 Jo. 5 : 1. 

one Father, even God, they advance a 
step further, and aver that not only 
is Abraham their father so far as hu- 
man paternity is concerned, but they 
have also one spiritual Father only, and 
he is God. Thus arrogating to them- 
selves the highest parentage human 
and divine, they sought to evade the 
declaration that their father was the 
devil, which they suspected our Lord 
was about to make. Some commenta- 
tors take the words, we were not born of 
fornication, in a spiritual sense : ' we are 
not children of spiritual fornication, 
that is, of idolatry, but are the wor- 
shippers of one God. In this great and 
essential feature by which we are dis- 
tinguished from the nations around us, 
as Abraham was distinguished from the 
idolatrous people among whom he 
dwelt, we show ourselves to be his real 
descendants.' I prefer the other inter- 
pretation, but yet the general sense is 
much the same, their design being to 
convict him of falsehood in denying 
that they were the children of Abra- 
ham. Stier's objection to this view, 
that Abraham's connection with Hagar 
was not fornication, and therefore spir- 
itual fornication must of necessity be 
referred to here, is of little weight, when 
the excited feelings of the speakers are 
taken into view, which would lead them 
to characterize by a strong and oppro- 
brious term that connection, to make it 
the more clear and impressive that they 
did not spring from any such parent- 
age. 

42. Our Lord had shown them that 
they had no such spiritual descent from 
Abraham, as to entitle them to the bless- 
ings covenanted to that patriarch and 
his posterity. He now proceeds to re- 
ply to this new claim of theirs, that they 
had one Father, even God. If God 
were your Father (in the spiritual sense 
which you claim him to be), ye would 
love me. Children of the same parent 
love one another, and this in propor- 



and came from God ; c neither 
came I of myself, but he sent me. 

5 Ch. 16 : 27 ; & IT : 8, 25. 
cCh. 5:43; & 7: 28, 29. 



tion to the respect and veneration they 
feel for their father. To this common 
and well-known principle in the family 
relation, our Lord appeals in proof of 
his- assertion, that his parentage and 
theirs were diverse and antagonistic. 
They had no sympathy with him in his 
divine work and mission ; they sought 
in every way to thwart and embarrass 
him in his labors ; they were even now 
planning his death, for the sole reason 
that he had honestly and plainly told 
them the truth. How then could they 
claim to be children of that God, who 
was in the highest and most peculiar 
sense his Father ? For I proceeded forth 
and came from God. This shows his di- 
vine paternity, and establishes his claim 
to their love, if they were, as they pro- 
fessed to be, the children of God. 
Hence as explanatory of the preceding 
clause, it begins with for. The pro- 
noun /, is here also emphatic, there 
being a continual reference in the dis- 
course to his low human condition as 
Jesus of Nazareth, which was to the 
Jews so fatal a stumbling-block in the 
recognition of his time character. Some 
refer the words proceeded forth, to his 
Eternal Sonship, and came, to his office 
of Legate, Mediator. But no such dif- 
ference is to be sought for in the words, 
as the last simply designates the com- 
pletion of the act denoted by the for- 
mer, or his fully entering upon the du- 
ties of the mission which he had come 
forth from God to take upon himself. 
Neither came I of myself, i. e. without 
being commissioned and sent of God. 
This is evident from the next clause 
but he sent me (i. e. commissioned me 
to come), which according to John's 
manner (see N. on 1 : 20), repeats. the 
same sentiment in the form of positive 
affirmation. With what frequency and 
emphasis did Jesus give utterance to 
this great truth, which underlies the 
whole scheme of redemption, that there 
was such essential unity between him 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



203 



43 d Why do ye not understand 
my speech ? even because ye can- 
not hear my word. 

44 e Ye are of your father the 
devil, and the lusts of your fa- 
ther ye will do : he was a mur- 

d Ch. 7 : 17. 

and the Father, that no act of the one 
was to be regarded apart from or inde- 
pendent of the other. It is not there- 
fore to be considered as a matter of little 
moment, or an unessential dogma, that 
Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God, 
and has the highest claims upon the 
adoration of all, as coeternal and co- 
equal with the Father. 

43. Why do ye not understand my 
speech ? This question implies wonder 
at their spiritual dulness. Every thing 
he said, they interpreted in a gross and 
literal sense. The word rendered 
speech, literally signifies manner or mode 
of speech, dialect, and is used here in 
the sense of saying, words, doctrines, 
with particular reference to the exter- 
nal form or verbal costume in which 
they were spoken. Our Lord's whole 
discourse was eminently spiritual, and 
his manner of speech or spiritual dia- 
lect, they did not understand. Even 
because, &c. This answers the ques- 
tion. Ye cannot (a moral inability) 
hear my word, i. e. as Alford rightly re- 
marks, the matter or contents of his 
discourses, the word itself. Had they 
been enlightened to discern the full and 
heavenly import of his doctrines, they 

'would not only have understood his 
manner of speech, but have been en- 
abled to take part in it themselves, as 
his chosen disciples doubtless often did, 
while they were journeying from place 
to place. But not being possessed of 
this spiritual discernment, they were 
always ready to attach to his words the 
most low and sensual meaning. They 
thus shut from themselves every ray of 
divine truth, which otherwise would 
have shone into their hearts, to give 
the light of the knowledge of the glory 
of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 
Cor. 4 : 6). 

44. This verse brings out in climac- 



derer from the beginning, and 
f abode not in the truth, because 
there is no truth in him. When 
he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of 
his own : for he is a liar, and the 
father of it. 

e Mat. 13 : 3S ; 1 Jo. 3 : 8. / Jude 6. 

teric prominence, the awful reason why 
these persons had so little spiritual dis- 
cernment, and were so averse to the 
truth. Their true paternity had been 
hinted at in v. 41, but now our Lord 
declares it in the plainest and most em- 
phatic terms. Ye are of your father the 
devil, i. e. you are spiritually like him, 
bearing his lineaments as children 
resemble their natural father, practis- 
ing his works, and joined with him in 
all evil. The pronoun ye, places in em- 
phatic contrast their pride of ancestral 
descent as children of Abraham, with 
their true paternity as children of the 
devil. Of your father, i. e. deriving 
your character and mode of life from 
your father the devil. This inti- 
mate and internal relationship is 
expressed by the preposition, which 
is not simply of or from, but out of, re- 
ferring not only to source, but to a par- 
ticipation in the qualities and character 
of the one from whom source is derived. 
The word your, need not to have been 
italicized in the English version, since 
it is expressed in the original by the 
force of the article. And (according 
to the well-known fact that children 
imitate the example of their parents) 
the lusts of your father (the devil) ye 
will do. The word lusts (literally, 
earnest desires, longings), in the New 
Testament, is generally employed in an 
evil sense, of those desires with which 
the mind is fixed on sensual or worldly 
objects. Here it is metaphorically put 
for the objects, upon which the mind, 
alienated from God and filled with ir- 
regular desires, fastens its supreme af- 
fections. Ye will do. An emphatic 
form of expression for ye are determined 
to do. " Your will is to do." Alford. 
The word will, is not here the auxiliary, 
but a verb having the sense of to wish, 
will, desire. It was a remark of Origen, 



204 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



that the internal will of itself without 
its external accomplishment, is suffi- 
cient to constitute children of the devil, 
for they will what he wills and accom- 
plish his lusts." He (emphatic in the 
original) loas a murderer; literally, a 
manslayer, reference being had to the 
introduction of sin and death through 
his agency. Compare 1 John 3 : 12, 
where the murder of Abel is clearly 
affirmed to have been [suggested] " of 
that wicked one." Olshausen denies 
that reference is had here to the mur- 
der of Abel, a fact too isolated to justify 
the appellation of murderer here given 
to Satan. But was the murder of Abel, 
which led the bloody procession of 
murders that have come down the cen- 
turies, and which was the type of all 
the violence and bloodshed that have 
since desolated the earth, an isolated 
and comparatively unimportant event ? 
Has it not a prominence in the sacred 
record (see Gen. 3:8-15; Matt. 23: 
35; Luke 11 :51; 1 John 3: 12; Jude 
11), such as to justify the appellation 
here given by our Lord to Satan, as 
the instigator of Cain to this unnatural 
and wicked deed? So it seems to me, 
and with this exposition the context 
remarkably harmonizes. The evil de- 
signs of the Jews towards Jesus, which 
he had charged upon them (v. 40), 
were proof that they were the children 
of that wicked one, who in the very 
beginning of the history of our race, 
manifested his murderous nature in 
the instigation of Cain to the crime of 
fratricide. This is more simple and 
natural than to refer it, as do Ol- 
shausen, Tholuck, Alford, and others, 
to the temptation and seduction of 
Adam into a sin which brought death 
upon the whole human race. It is true 
that Adam's first sin, to the commission 
of which he was tempted by the adver- 
sary, was the type and source of all the 
subsequent transgressions of our race ; 
but here the reference is not to sin in 
general, but to the particular crime of 
murder, which being already conceived 
in their mind (v. 40), was clear proof 
that they were the children of that 
"wicked one" (1 John 3: 12), who in- 
cited Cain to slay his brother, and thus 



showed his murderous nature from the 
very beginning of the history of our 
race. There are not wanting expositors 
who find in the words from the begin- 
ning, a reference to the murderous 
spirit possessed by Satan from the time 
of his first rebellion in heaven. This 
interpretation, although based on a 
truth, contains a reference too general 
and remote to suit the wants of the 
passage, and is therefore untenable. 

Abode not in the truth ; more liter- 
ally, stands not in the truth. The idea 
is that from the time of his fall, he has 
been persistent in his apostacy from the 
truth. This clause according to John's 
usage, is the emphatic negative repe- 
tition of that which was affirmatively 
expressed in the preceding clause. 
There is no tautology in these great 
utterances, but an emphatic fulness in 
order to bring out the thought with 
point and precision. Because there is 
no truth, &c. Here truth is used sub- 
jectively: 'he abides not in the truth 
of God, because truth or truthftdness is 
not in him? Eobinson (Lexicon) gives 
this translation : " he abode not in the 
truth (as a rule of duty), because there 
is no (love of) truth in him.'''' When 
(literally, whenever) he speaketh a lie. 
It is remarkable with what copiousness 
and energy ' of utterance, our Lord 
here depicts the character of Satan. 
In the preceding clause, a total absence 
of the principle of truthfulness was pre- 
dicated of him. Here he is declared 
to be the very impersonation of false- 
hood, and the author of every lie. It is 
assumed that lying is his habitual prac- 
tice, and whenever a falsehood is utter- 
ed by him he speaketh of his own ; he 
gives outward expression of an inward 
and abiding principle essentially pos- 
sessed by him, and in that sense, pecu- 
liarly and wholly his own. Alford re- 
marks, that the article which accom- 
panies the word lie, in the original, 
gives it a generic sense, as in the Eng- 
lish expression to speak the truth, of 
which there is no corresponding form 
in regard to speaking or telling a lie. 
But a better explanation is to refer the 
article, to the idea of a lie implied in 
the negative clause, there is no truth in 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER Till. 



205 



45 And because I tell you the 
truth, ye believe me not. 

him, which precedes. The word lie, is 
not therefore a generic term, but repre- 
sents every falsehood which he utters, 
as evincing clearly that the principle of 
truthfulness is not in him. It must not 
from this be inferred, that intellectual 
or objective truth is not in Satan, for 
in James 2 : 19, it is said that "the 
devils believe and tremble." They have 
an intellectual perception of the great 
truth of God's existence and the future 
retribution of the wicked ; but subjec- 
tively and as an object of love, truth 
has no residence whatever in them. 
For he is a liar. This is his true char- 
acter, and hence whenever he speaketh 
a lie, he speaketh what is truly and ap- 
propriately his own. This sentence 
therefore explains and confirms the 
preceding one, and is introduced by the 
causal for. These reiterations are de- 
signed' to give emphasis to the fact, 
that the devil is the arch deceiver, and 
the source of all error aud falsehood. 
Father of it. Of what? Some exposi- 
tors take the pronoun in the masculine, 
and render of him, that is, of the liar 
implied in the preceding clause, and re- 
ferring, (as Bengel, Stier, and Alford 
think,) in a collective sense to the 
wicked and lying Jews. But this would 
be so sudden and abrupt a reference to 
the persons whom he was addressing, 
that I prefer the more usual interpreta- 
tion, which refers the pronoun in the 
neuter, to^g lie or lying, implied in the 
preceding word liar. So Winer: "father 
of falsehood is a notion more appropri- 
ate to John, who has a predilection for 
abstract terms." All lying is here de- 
clared to be traceable to the paternity 
of the devil. Hence by an easy transi- 
tion of thought, all who practise lying, 
that is all liars, are of their father the 
devil. The Jews could not have failed 
to perceive the drift and intended ap- 
plication of these words of Jesus. But 
no special reference in direct terms was 
made to them, as the above named 
commentators suppose. Against their 
interpretation also it might be said, 
that father of you would be a weak and 



46 "Which of you convinceth 



unmeaning repetition of, ye are of your 
father the devil, in the first clause' of the 
verse ; whereas this declaration of the 
twofold paternity of the devil as the 
father of these wicked Jews, and of all 
lies, would be justly regarded by them 
as equivalent to saying that they were 
liars and deceivers. 

45. This verse stands connected with 
the preceding one, as the result of 
what is there affirmed. The Jews 
being children of the devil, and pos- 
sessed of his moral traits, it was not 
singular that they loved . the way of 
error and sin, and embraced falsehood 
rather than truth. Of course they re- 
jected Jesus, who was the impersona- 
tion of truth, and therefore in his 
character the very opposite of the 
father of lies, by whom their conduct 
was influenced. Because I tell you the 
truth. This reason for their unbelief 
and hostility to him, shows that the 
causal sense given to the clause, a mart 
that hath told you the truth in v. 40 
(on which see Xote), is the true one. 
It was our Lord's unwavering adher- 
ence to truth, and his frank and open 
expression of it, uninfluenced by the 
fear or favor of men, which excited 
against him the deadly hostility of the 
rulers and Pharisees. Ye believe me 
not. This shows that their rejection of 
the truth was wilful, and not the re- 
sult of its being either dimly revealed, 
or beyond their natural capacity to un- 
derstand. In the original a strong em- 
phasis is given to I, as though our 
Lord interposed his low condition, as a 
reason why his declaration of his Mes- 
siahship was not credited by the Jews. 
'Because i", a man whom you regard as 
so much your inferior in rank and 
station, have disclosed to you great 

I and weighty truths, you make this the 
i ground of rejecting my message and re- 
■ garding me as an impostor.' 

46. Which of you convinceth, k.c. In 
I this question our Lord" challenges the 
i Jews to convict him of any sin, which 
j would render him unworthy of belief. 
I The interrogation is equivalent to : 



206 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



me of sin? And if I say the 

truth, why do ye not believe me ? 

47 9 He that is of God heareth 

g Ch. 10:26, 2T;1 Jp. 4:6. 

' who of you impeaches my testimony, 
by convicting me of any sin ? ' His 
well-known sinless character was the 
highest proof of his truthfulness, and 
he therefore proceeds to inquire why, 
in view of this, they withhold from him 
their belief. To this there could be 
but one answer given. It was because 
of their deep-rooted aversion to the 
truth. Their father was the father of 
lies, and they partook of the same 
moral qualities which he possessed. 
Thus Jesus substantiates his charge 
made in v. 44, from their conduct on 
the present occasion. Infidels and 
rationalists, as Strauss and Miiller, give 
to our Lord's question this low sense : 
" Can ye prove any error against me, 
any error in my conclusions ? " But in 
that case, we should have expected a 
word in the original, of which there 
are several, signifying error, falsehood, 
deceit, and not the very word which 
signifies sin abstractedly considered, or 
as an actual transgression, having this 
meaning, as Stier correctly affirms, in 
this chapter (v. 34), throughout the 
whole gospel, the entire New Testament, 
and all the Scriptures. We cannot 
therefore agree with Tholuck, that 
Melancthon and Calvin hit the true 
point, when they retain indeed the 
signification sin, but comparing 1 Cor. 
4 : 4, interpret the expression only of 
transgression within the sphere of his 
office, and so far only of error. It is 
not simply a challenge, that no fault 
could be found in him in regard to his 
performance of the duties of the Mes- 
sianic office. It rises high above this, and 
embraces all his acts and manifestations, 
in a word, his whole being and charac- 
ter, challenging the minutest inspection, 
and defying his enemies to point out 
a single instance in which he "had com- 
mitted a sin. Nothing short of a claim 
to absolute sinlessness fully meets 
the demands of the passage, especially 
in this connection, where Jesus stands 



God's words : ye therefore hear 
them not, because ye are not of 
God. 



as the living impersonation of truth, 
as opposed to the devil the father of 
lies, and instigator of all falsehood and 
error. 

47. The reason is here given for their 
want of faith in him. They were not 
of God, and hence did not receive the 
words of God's Son. He that is of God is 
the same as he that is born of God, and is 
opposed to ye are of your father the devil 
in v. 44. The preposition of, has here 
the same signification of internal and 
intimate relationship as in v. 44. The 
children of the two kingdoms of light 
and darkness, bear a moral resemblance 
to those towards whom they sustain 
this relationship of children. Hence 
they are radically opposed to one an- 
other, and are placed here in strong 
contrast, there being between them 
this wide distinction, that those who are 
of God, place full confidence in all 
which He or his accredited messengers 
may say ; while the very opposite to 
this is true of those who are opposed 
to his rule and authority. Heareth 
God's words, i. e. believes them and 
regulates thereby his life and conduct. 
This is the evidence of his filial rela- 
tionship to God. The Jews did not 
furnish this evidence, and therefore the 
claim which they set up in v. 41, was 
proved to be false. This is distinctly 
reaffirmed in the next clause, ye -there- 
fore hear them not, because ye are not 
of God, which stands as the inevitable 
inference of the great truth here laid 
down. Thus ends our Saviour's argu- 
ment, by which he fully supported his 
allegation that these wicked Jews were 
not the true children of Abraham, 
much less of God, as with such boast- 
ing confidence they claimed to be. It 
would be difficult to find elsewhere so 
close and convincing a train of argu- 
ment, as that with which our Lord con- 
founded his adversaries on this occasion. 

48. Answered the Jews. The scribes 
and Pharisees during the preceding dis- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



207 



48 Then answered the Jews, 
and said unto him, Say we not 
well that thou art a Samaritan, 
and * hast a devil ? 



cussion, which, as has been shown (see 
K. on. v. 33), was begun and carried on 
with those who professed to believe in 
Jesus, were doubtless gathering around 
him and listening intently to the words 
which fell from his lips. Either taking 
advantage of some pause of his dis- 
course, or else interrupting his argu- 
ment, they commence to heap abuse 
upon him. We can hardly believe that 
the words here recorded, were spoken 
by those who a little before were pro- 
fessing their belief in him; although 
it is not strange if some very speed- 
ily made shipwreck of their faith, 
which, as we learn from v. 31, was not 
yet deeply rooted or genuine. The 
term Jews, must therefore be referred 
here to the rulers and Pharisees, who 
now come forward again to annoy him 
and find some occasion by Avhich to ef- 
fect his death. Say we not well? The 
question is evidently grounded on the 
charge which our Lord had just made, 
that the Jews were not of God, inas- 
much as they hated the truth, and loved 
falsehood and deceit. They tauntingly 
reply : ' However this may be, you can- 
not deny that we speak well, (i. e. with 
truth,) in charging you with being a 
Samaritan and possessed of a devil. To 
be a Samaritan was in their estimation 
to be an outcast from Israel, and un- 
worthy a place or name among the 
people of God. Hence for a person to 
be so called, was the greatest reproach 
which could be heaped on him. The 
tense of the verb say, indicates that 
they had frequently made this remark 
respecting him. Their reply may there- 
fore be thus paraphrased : ' Is not that 
common remark which we have made 
of you, well said, that you are a Samar- 
itan ? If we had no evidence of this 
before, the words which you have just 
spoken are amply sufficient to convince 
us of its truth.' Hast a devil. See N. 
on 7 : 20. 

49. Two of the vilest charges had 
been made against our Lord, the first 



49 Jesus answered, I have not 
a devil ; but I honour my Father, 
and ye do dishonour me. 

ACh. 7:20;&10:20; ver. 52. 

of which, as Stier remarks, sundered 
him from communion with Israel ; the 
second, from that of Israel's God. To 
the former of these charges he makes no 
reply, thus evincing that Jew and Sa- 
maritan were both alike in his estima- 
tion, and that his purpose of love em- 
braced all, Jews, Samaritans, and Gen- 
tiles. But to the second, which con- 
tains a serious charge of rebellion and 
opposition to God, he mildly replies by 
denying its truth. I have not a devil. 
' I am neither insane, nor acting in re- 
bellion to God. So far from this being 
true, I honor my Father ; and it is be- 
cause I do this, that ye dishonor me, by 
loading me with such opprobrious epi- 
thets and rejecting my words.' Such 
is the purport of his reply, which is 
couched in brief and modest language, 
and finely illustrates the testimony 
borne by Peter (1 Pet. 2 : 23), who may 
have had in mind just such occasions 
as this, as well as his trial before the 
Sanhedrim, on the morning of his cru- 
cifixion. The honor which he rendered 
to his Father, is here placed in strong 
contrast with the dishonor he was re- 
ceiving from them ; and the argument, 
the drift of which they could not but 
perceive, was, that in dishonoring him 
whose whole mission was to honor the 
Father, they likewise dishonored God. - 
50. And (literally but, with a slight 
adversative sense) / seek not mine own 
glory. ' Worldly honor or applause is 
a small thing in my estimation. The 
glory of the Father is the great object 
and aim of my mission. Hence in doing 
my Father's will, while I seek not mine 
own glory, I have no fear that it will 
be overlooked, or that my innocence 
will not be vindicated.' There is in the 
original an emphasis given to the pro- 
noun /, which silently contrasts his hu- 
mility with their habit of self glorifica- 
tion. There is one that seeketh (to pro- 
mote my honor), and judgeth between 
me and you. See N. on 16 : 10, where 
this judgment to which our Lord looks 



208 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



50 And * I seek not mine own 
glory : there is one that seeketh 
and judgeth. 



i Ch. 5 : 41 : & 7 : IS. 



for vindication from the charges of his 
enemies, is particularly referred to as 
the -work of the promised Spirit. The 
humanity of Jesus appears very dis- 
tinctly, in this affecting reference to the 
vindication of his character by the One 
whose commission he bears. As a man, 
he was not insensible to the obloquy 
and contempt which were so publicly 
heaped upon him ; but his ardent love 
and devotion to the Father, caused him 
to lose sight of every other considera- 
tion, than the work which had been 
given him to do. He calmly reposes 
his honor in the keeping of his God, 
and relies on Him for judgment against 
his enemies. There is no discrepancy 
in this reliance upon his Father to 
judge between him and the wicked 
Jews, and what is declared by him in 
5:22, that "the Father judgeth no 
man, but hath committed all judgment 
unto the Son; " for this is a judgment 
between Christ and his enemies, in 
which he condescends to confront them 
before the tribunal of Infinite Justice, 
in order that it may be seen how false 
and malicious were the charges made 
against him. This being done, and our 
Lord's integrity fully vindicated, at the 
appointed time (Acts 17 : 31), he will 
himself come to judgment in all the 
glory of his Father, and with his holy 
angels, and pronounce sentence upon 
all mankind, according to the immuta- 
ble principles of righteousness as con- 
tained in his revealed word. A ques- 
tion may arise as to the time when 
this judgment, so vindicatory of our 
Lord's character, was to be passed. The 
answer is given in 15:8-11. It was 
not to consist in one judicial act at a 
given period of time, but was to be a 
continuous process of judgment, carried 
on by the Spirit and enduring to the 
end of time. It began on the day of 
Pentecost, and from that time to this, 
wherever the Spirit has been poured 
out, His great work has been to lead 
men to honor and glorify Jesus as their 



51 Verily, verily, I say unto 
you, * If a man keep my saying, 
he shall never see death. 

fcCh. 5:24; All r26. 

divine Saviour, apart from whom there 
is no way of escape from sin and death. 
See further, Note on 15 : 8-11. 

51. Inspired with new and holy ar- 
dor, in view of his Father's protecting 
care and jealous concern for his honor, 
our Lord now declares in the most ex- 
press terms, that the way to escape 
eternal death, is to keep his sayings. 
No one can fail to perceive a strongly 
marked contrast between the sorrowing 
spirit which threw itself for relief in the 
preceding verse, upon the paternal love 
of the Father, and the exultant joy, 
with which is announced in this verse, 
the great truth that in the keeping of 
his words is eternal life. Such passages 
bring out the humanity of Jesus in bold 
relief, and show that he fully shared in 
the joys and sorrows, hopes and disap- 
pointments, which are incident to hu- 
man life. The calmness of mind and 
holy zeal which followed our Lord's 
committal of his cause to his Father, 
have oftentimes been witnessed in his 
followers especially in times of persecu- 
tion. When they were brought to 
abandon all hope in themselves, and to 
place their reliance only in God, they 
became armed with new zeal for the 
conflict, and thus in their weakness 
and self-distrust found the element of 
their greatest triumph and success. 

Verily, verily. A great truth is here 
to be announced, as in v. 34, and is 
therefore introduced by our Lord's 
usual form of solemn asseveration. 
If any man (see N. on 1 : 3*7) keep my 
saying, is equivalent to abiding in my 
word, in v. 31, on which see Note. The 
verb rendered keep, is a word of strong- 
er signification in the original, signify- 
ing, to have an eye upon, to give heed to, 
watch narrowly ; and hence does not 
here refer to the mere external act, but 
to the principle of obedience, founded 
upon the living word of Christ cher- 
ished in the heart of the believ- 
er, and leading him to have continual 
reference to the divine command in all 



A. D. 83.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



209 



52 Then said the Jews unto 
him, Now we know that thou 
hast a devil. l Abraham is dead, 

ZZec. 1:5; He. 11:13. 



that he does. This seed sown in the 
heart, will ever produce the fruits of 
obedience to Christ's commands. The 
original for %vord, in t. 31, and saying, 
in the present passage, is the same ; 
and our translators would have done 
well, to have rendered them by the 
same word in our English version. lie 
shall never see death ; a Hebraism for 
shall never die, which in accordance 
with John's manner of speech, is by a 
denial of the contrary, a most emphatic 
declaration of the affirmative, he shall 
have eternal life. The form of negation 
in the original is intensive, not at all, 
by no means. Death is here taken in its 
highest and most essential sense. It is 
worthy of note, how our Lord pro- 
gressively unfolds in terms more and 
more clear and unmistakable, the con- 
soling truth, that death in its highest 
and most dreadful sense, shall never 
be visited upon the believer. In 5 : 24, 
it was incidentally referred to as a pass- 
ing from death unto life. In 6 : 50, 51, 
58, it is developed more fully, but in 
connection with the resurrection of the 
body. Here it is asserted in unquali- 
fied terms, that whoever keeps the word 
of Jesus shall never see death, and in 
11:25, 26, the idea is expanded and 
enforced in the strongest and most un- 
mistakable language. 

Such calm and unshaken confidence 
in his Father, and so bold and, in their 
estimation, impious a declaration as 
that made in v. 51, call forth from his 
adversaries a repetition of the charge 
made in v. 48, in terms of still greater 
severity. There it was : 'Have we not 
spoken well when we charged you, as 
we have done repeatedly, with being a 
Samaritan and having a devil?' But 
now they repeat the charge in the most 
positive terms. It is no longer with 
them a matter of conjecture but of cer- 
tain knowledge, that he is one doomed 
of God for his shocking impiety and 
blasphemous assumptions. ' Now toe 
know (what before might admit of some 



and the prophets ; and thou say- 
est, If a man keep my saying, he 
shall never taste of death. 



little uncertainty) that thou hast a devil? 
With the same spiritual obtuseness 
which characterized all their opposition 
to Jesus, and either really or wilfully 
ignorant of what death was in its high- 
est and most essential sense, they refer 
his words to the death of the body and 
are ready to exclaim : ' who is this that 
proclaims exemption from paying the 
debt of nature, on condition of obe- 
dience to his word ? He must certainly 
be mad. He has a demon.' Abraham 
is dead. As physical death is here evi- 
dently referred to, it shows how 
strangely they had perverted the mean- 
ing of our Lord's words. Their con- 
tinual reference to Abraham, evinces 
their determination to adhere to their 
declaration that he was their father. 
This is plainly reaffirmed in v. 53. And 
the prophets. They associate the proph- 
ets with Abraham, in order to make 
the absurdity of his words the more 
glaring. And thou say est (notwith- 
standing the fact that Abraham and 
the prophets are dead), If a man keep 
my saying, he shall never taste of death. 
The construction taste of death in the 
original, is very emphatic, the literal 
meaning being to have any taste what- 
ever of death, to taste of it in any degree. 
Their evident design in thus misquoting 
our Lord's words shall not see death, 
was to make them stronger and there- 
fore more absucd and offensive. But 
Jesus might well have accepted the 
form of language in which they had 
given expression to this great truth, 
for in the sense in which he uttered it, 
the believer would neither see nor 
taste death. He would have no expe- 
rience whatever of its power, being re- 
deemed from the curse of the law by 
faith in Christ, and therefore wholly 
exempt from all its pains and penalties. 
The experience of death is often re- 
ferred to in the Rabbinical writings, 
by the expression taste of death, the 
allusion, however, not being so much 
to a cup or goblet of which one tastes 



210 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



53 Art thou greater than our 
father Abraham, which is dead ? 
and the prophets are dead : whom 
makest thou thyself? 

54 Jesus answered, M If I hon- 



or partakes, as to the bitterness of 
death, a metaphorical expression famil- 
iar to us at the present time. Compare 
1 Sam. 15 : 32 ; Eccl. 1 : 26. 

53. Art thou greater, &c. This ques- 
tion presupposes him an impostor, for 
it was a matter of universal belief with 
the nation, that the Messiah was to be 
superior to any who had preceded him. 
The question partakes of the same 
national pride and folly, which charac- 
terized the woman of Samaria (4: 12), 
when she arrayed the greatness of 
Jacob against our Lord's apparent pre- 
sumption in claiming to have at his 
disposal living water. Which is dead. 
The pronoun is masculine in the origi- 
nal, and should have been rendered 
who. They repeat the assertion in or- 
der to make it emphatic, and because 
they regarded it a triumphant refuta- 
tion of his absurd statement. And the 
prophets are dead. The departure from 
the regular construction is suited to 
their excited feelings. Whom makest 
thou thyself? i. e. whom do you pre- 
tend to be, that you utter such absurd 
and impious sentiments ? 

54. The reply of Jesus is first to 
this last inquiry. Their assertion that 
Abraham was dead is virtually answered 
in v. 56. If I honor myself i. e. arro- 
gate glory to myself. My honor is 
nothing, i. e. all such glory would be of 
no account. Jesus refers here to a 
common principle, which all would ac- 
knowledge, that self-praise not only 
adds nothing to a man's reputation, 
but even damages it in the estimation 
of the wise. Hence he will not in re- 
ply to their question, trumpet forth his 
own praise by reiterating his high dig- 
nity and mission. In thus disclaiming 
all self-commendation, he prepares the 
way for a further disclosure of his in- 
timate relations with God the Father, 
which we shall see in the sequel infuri- 
ated them to the highest degree. It is 



our myself, my honour is nothhig : 
* it is my Father that honoureth 
me ; of whom ye say, that he is 
your GJ-od : 

wCh.5:31. 
n Ch. 5 : 41 ; & 16 : 14: & 17 : 1 : Ac. 3 : 13. 



my Father that honoreth me, and he in 
his own way and time will vindicate my 
honor by making known who I am. 
The expression honoreth, is what gram- 
marians call the absolute present, and 
is designed to cover the past, present, 
and future, the whole office work of 
Jesus, from the time when he first took 
upon himself the work of human re- 
demption, to the consummation of all 
things spoken of in 1 Cor. 15 : 24-28. 
The honor here spoken of has primary 
reference to the power to offer eternal 
life, at which the Jews had taken such 
offence. But that power nevertheless 
presupposes the high dignity which Jesus 
claimed as the Son of God. Of whom 
ye say, &c. His testimony you cannot 
reject, for Him you claim to be your 
God. Stier says that "almost all ex- 
positors glide rapidly over the most 
weighty assurance given here, in which 
Jesus declares His father and the God 
who revealed himself in Israel, though 
by Israel He was not truly known, to 
be the same.'''' The word say, refers to 
the boastful spirit with which their claim 
to the worship of the true God, was 
put forth. Our Lord does not deny 
that the Jehovah of the Old Testament 
was Israel's God, but simply rebukes 
the Pharisaic self-righteousness with 
which this was claimed by the Jews. 
Nor should any inference be drawn 
from these words, that the ruling Jeho- 
vah of the Old Testament and the In- 
carnate "Word of the New, was not 
one and the same Being. See N. on 
12 : 41. Our Lord's words are to be 
taken in an objective sense, that is, as 
the thing appeared to the Jews. 

55. Yet ye have not known him, al- 
though you make such pretensions of 
being his children (v. 41), and boast 
that He is your God. Some critics 
connect this clause with the preceding, 
and translate of whom ye say, ' he is 
our God\ andknoio him not. But this 



A.D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



211 



55 Yet "ye Lave not known him ; 
but I know him : and if I should 
Bay, I know him not, I shall be a 
liar like unto you : but I know 
him, and keep his saying. 

presents less forcibly the contrast be- 
tween their arrogant claims and real 
ignorance of God, and I prefer, there- 
fore, the common punctuation and ar- 
rangement. Ye have not known him in 
the high and spiritual sense referred to 
in v. 19. Intellectual knowledge of God 
is not here meant, for no finite being can 
comprehend the Infinite One (Job 11: 
7), but correct views of his holiness, 
the spirituality of his worship, his de- 
signs of grace to fallen man as revealed 
in" the Old Testament, in a word, all 
those great and fundamental views of 
God, which tend to abase and humble 
the creature, and to excite aspirations to 
be transformed to the moral image of 
the Most High. These were as un- 
known to them, as though hidden in 
impenetrable darkness. This ignorance 
of the Divine Being and perfections, 
was to the highest degree blameworthy, 
for had the Old Testament been read 
by them with a teachable spirit and 
sincere desire to know the truth, it 
would have made so clear a revelation 
to them of God, that they would at once 
have recognized Jesus as his Eternal 
Son. But I know him. The knowl- 
edge here spoken of not only embraces 
God's moral attributes revealed in the 
Old Testament Scriptures, but also that 
cognition of his essential nature and be- 
ing, of which Jesus was conscious, from 
the profound and intimate relations 
which from eternity had subsisted be- 
tween him and the Father. The verbs 
translated have known and know, are dif- 
ferent in the original, the latter refer- 
ring to immediate knowledge, the 
former to that which is gained by ob- 
servation or investigation. Our Lord's 
denial that the Pharisees had any 
knowledge of God, even such as result- 
ed from the investigation of his word 
and works, and his own claim to full 
and perfect knowledge of Him, and 
that too by immediate cognition or intui- 



56 Your father Abraham v re- 
joiced to see my day : q and he 



saw it, and was glad. 

oCh. 7:2S, 29. 
p Ln. 10 : 24. 
q He. 11:13. 



tion, apart from and independent of all 
those manifestations by which the Deity 
has revealed Himself to man, must have 
exasperated them to the highest degree, 
and prepared the way for their attempt 
upon his life in the manner recorded in 
v. 59. 

If I should say, &c. As they had 
proved themselves liars by claiming 
God as their Father, so he avers that 
he would utter a falsehood by denying 
all knowledge of the Father. The an- 
tithesis is here strongly kept up between 
his perfect knowledge and their abso- 
lute ignorance of God. Like unto you 
has not the form of con?truction in the 
original, which denotes external resem- 
blance, but a likeness of conduct and 
character, as in our expression of your 
kind. The next clause but I know him, 
is an emphatic repetition, and also de- 
signed to bring that declaration into 
close connection with and keep his say- 
ing, which is added, as a proof from 
his filial obedience, that his knowledge 
of the Father was genuine. We should 
never lose sight of the fact, that such 
expressions as keep his word or saying, 
refer to the obedience of the Son, as 
Messiah, God-man, in a state of volun- 
tary subordination to the Father who 
sent him into the world. Olshausen, 
overlooking thi3 great fact, says that 
" this language seems to favor the So- 
cinian view of Christ." But such a 
remark he would have had no occasion 
to make, had he not interpreted the 
passage erroneously of the receptive 
act of the creature toward grace con- 
ferred, and lost sight of its natural and 
obvious meaning, to keep or obey the 
divine command. 

56. The reference to Abraham seems 
to have a twofold object; one, to con- 
fute the error of their assertion that 
Abraham was dead (vs. 52, 53); the 
other, to show how different was his es- 
timation of the dignity of Jesus, from 



212 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



theirs who boasted of being his chil- 
dren. Your father Abraham, i. e. 
Abraham your boasted father. Rejoic- 
ed to see my day ; literally, rejoiced (in 
this) that he should see my day, i. e. in 
the anticipation of seeing me in my state 
of incarnation. The word rendered 
rejoiced, is the same as the one used in 
Matt. 5:12, and refers to a joy so 
great and exultant, that it finds expres- 
sion in leaping and dancing. There 
can hardly be a doubt that my day, 
refers to the time of our Lord's incar- 
nation or appearance on earth. The 
days of Noah (Luke ¥l : 26), and one 
of the days of the Son of man, in v. 22 
of the same chapter, have unmistakable 
reference to the time in which Noah 
lived on earth, and to the time of the 
manifestation of the Son of man. The 
day of Christ in Phil. 1 : 6, and the day 
of the Lord in 1 Thess. 5 : 2, are clearly 
referred by the context to the day of 
judgment, when Christ shall make his 
second advent in glory. But no such 
remote reference would suit the con- 
nection in which the expression my 
day, stands here ; but on the contrary, 
the discussion, which hinges on the 
present condition and claims of Jesus, 
demands that it should be interpreted 
of Christ's appearance in the flesh, to 
achieve the work of human salvation. 
In the anticipation of a day so impor- 
tant to the destinies of man, Abraham 
greatly rejoiced. 

And he saw it. This shows that 
Abraham was not dead in the essential 
sense of the term ; and the argument 
which they had advanced against his 
proffer of eternal life, from the death 
of Abraham, was thus deprived of all 
its force. Abraham was declared to 
have enjoyed the actual vision of that 
in anticipation of which he so much re- 
joiced, and was therefore still living. 
This ought to have shown them in 
what sense ourLord employed the words 
life and death, in his present discourse. 
But in their reply, they stupidly and 
wickedly persist in attaching the low 
temporal sense to his use of those 
terms. We have no clue to determine 
the precise time when Abraham was 
favored with this sight of our Lord, in 



the day of his manifestation in the 
flesh. The tense of the verb saw, 
shows that the event had already 
transpired. Some suppose that it was 
some time during the forty days of his 
temptation in the wilderness. Others 
with more probability, refer it to some 
season when he was by himself in medi- 
tation and prayer. But the precise 
time of the event is comparatively of 
little moment. The fact is all with 
which we have to do. The mount of 
Transfiguration shows that not only the 
sight of our Lord, but intercourse with 
him might be enjoyed by the blessed 
above, to whom might be accorded 
this special favor. There is therefore 
nothing strange or incredible in the as- 
sertion here made, that Abraham saw Je- 
sus in his incarnate state. That this sight 
was one of special favor and blessed- 
ness, and that it bore some resemblance 
to the intimate communion which Mo- 
ses and Elias enjoyed with Jesus on the 
mount of Transfiguration, there can be 
little doubt, when reference is had to 
the great joy which Abraham felt even 
in its distant prospect, and the promi- 
nence here given to it by our Lord 
himself. 

Many attempts have been made to 
refer # this to some theophany in Abra- 
ham's lifetime on earth. Some refer it 
to the manifestation of the Son of God 
among the three guests at Mamre (Gen. 
18:2); especially to the promised 
visitation in v. 10. Others refer it 
strangely to the birth of Isaac, at 
which Abraham laughed; and others 
still, to Isaac's restoration from death 
(Heb. 11:19). Olshausen explains it of 
some vision of the "revelation of God 
realized in Christ," which Abraham en- 
joyed while he lived on earth. Had it 
referred to a sight of Christ in the ac- 
tual days of his ministry, this distin- 
guished expositor maintains that the 
verb should have been in the present 
tense, " Abraham sees my day and re- 
joices,'''' because the ministry of Christ 
on earth was still continuing. But Ol- 
shausen seems to forget, that it may not 
have been a general or extended vision 
of the incarnate Kedeemer during his 
whole earthly ministry, which is referred 



A, D. 33.] 



CHAPTER VIII. 



213 



57 Then said the Jews unto 



to, but a beatified view of him at some 
particular period, which at the time 
when Jesus here spake of it, was already 
past. Such certainly is the sense 
which lies upon the face of the pas- 
sage. Besides, as Tholuck well ob- 
serves, if reference is had to a prophetic 
vision merely, in what then had Abra- 
ham a prerogative beyond that of other 
prophets? Another view, to which 
Stier refers as one which was held by 
Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, 
Calvin, and Beza, is that it refers to a 
spiritual prospective view of the day of 
Christ, (see Heb. 11: 13), which some 
of these expositors regarded as the 
great day of revelation in judgment. 
So Bengel refers it to the anticipation 
of the day of the Lord's glory, " the day 
of the majesty of Christ." But how is 
this anticipated sight of a day of future 
glory reconcilable with the simple an- 
nouncement, and he saw it? Language 
could not express in plainer terms the 
fact, that Abraham had already enjoyed 
that vision, to which, while on earth, 
he had looked forward with such joy- 
ous anticipation. Stier well remarks 
that the Lord gives a sublime assur- 
ance, that he was privy to the actual 
joy of Abraham at his manifestation in 
the flesh, as the object for which he 
had while in the flesh waited with the 
joy of hope. This excellent and pro- 
found commentator believes also, that 
there was an actual intercourse, 
though secret, between Abraham and 
Christ. No other view seems to me to 
meet the wants of the passage, which 
evidently hints at a mystery, which 
finds its counterpart and partial ex- 
planation at least, in the scene on the 
mount of Transfiguration. 

5*7. The Jews refer the vision of 
Christ here spoken of, to the time of 
Abraham's life on earth. The point of 
their reply is this : ' If Abraham saw 
your day, you must have seen his, and 
how could that be, when you are not 
yet fifty years old ?' It was this under- 
standing of our Lord's words by the 
Jews, which has led so many commen- 



him, Thou art not yet fifty years 
old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? 

tators to refer the vision of Christ to 
an event which took place during the 
lifetime of Abraham. But is it not 
quite clear, that according to their 
usual habit, they grossly perverted our 
Lord's meaning, in order to evade the 
force of his argument, and hold him up 
the more conspicuously as a madman 
possessed of a devil ? If their under- 
standing of the words as referring to a 
sight which Abraham enjoyed in his life- 
time, was the correct one, how do our 
Lord's words prove or illustrate his ar- 
gument that Abraham was not dead, as 
they had affirmed in v. 53 ? Although 
it was true, what they captiously ad- 
vanced and with sinister purpose, that 
he had seen Abraham's day, and al- 
though he meets this new charge with 
the sublime declaration that such was 
the fact ; yet there can be no question 
that they grossly perverted his words 
in this inference, his simple statement 
being, that the patriarch had looked 
forward with joyous anticipation to the 
time when he should see Him in whom 
all the families of the earth were to be 
blessed, while manifest in the flesh, 
and that he had actually enjoyed that 
sight in its full and glorious reality. 
The Jews had no license to affix to the 
words of Jesus any other than their 
plain and obvious sense ; nor do com- 
mentators act wisely in attempting to 
reach the meaning of the passage by 
resorting to their reply, which is so 
manifestly a misrepresentation of his 
words. JSFot yet fifty years old. They 
speak in general terms, allowing him 
the greatest age which he or any of his 
friends could claim. Fifty years was 
the term of active human life, an age 
when the Levites vacated their office. 
This was the limit of a full life, which 
Jesus had not yet reached, but no in- 
ference is to be drawn from the pas- 
sage, that he was at this time nearly 
fifty years of age, which would conflict 
with Luke 3 : 23. Hast thou seen Abra- 
ham, as thou must have done, if Abra- 
ham has seen thee ? By such a perver- 
sion of the plain import of his words, 



214 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



58 Jesus said unto them, Ver- 
ily, verily, I say unto you, Before 
Abraham was, r I am. 

59 Then * took they up stones 

r Ex. 3:14; Is. 43:13; ch. 17:5,24; Col. 1: 
17; Be. 1:8. 

they seek to convict him of an absurd- 
ity, such as no sane man would have 
uttered. Nothing short of a wilful 
misunderstanding could have led them 
to suppose that by the term my day, he 
intended to convey the idea of his ac- 
tual abode on earth during the patri- 
arch's lifetime. But in thus attempting 
to fasten upon him an absurdity, which 
should destroy his reputation as a sane 
man in the eyes of the people, they con- 
duct him to that very point in the great 
argument which he has held with them, 
in which under the modest form of a 
reply to their direct question, he de- 
clares in the most sublime and explicit 
language his preexistent state {before 
Abraham was), and his supreme divin- 
ity (I am). See N. on v. 58. 

58. Before Abraham was I am. This 
is one of our Lord's great utterances, 
and teaches beyond all question the 
preexistence of Christ. Many attempts 
have been made to elicit from the pas- 
sage a different and inferior sense, but 
it has remained true to its testimony, 
and always will do so as long as the 
word of God endures. But not only 
does it teach Christ's preexistence, but 
also his supreme divinity. The verb 
in / am, is a present which includes 
the entire duration of the past ; a state 
of continuance through all past time 
down to the present moment. In this 
great sense, embracing the eternity 
past, and connecting it with the pres- 
ent, and by implication with the future, 
the expression answers to the word Je- 
hovah, the which was, which is, and 
which will be, denoting continual and 
uninterrupted existence. See Ex. 3 : 
14 ; 6:3; Rev. 1:4. It would have 
been the rankest blasphemy for our 
Saviour, to have declared this of him- 
self had he been other than God. There 
is a strong antithesis between the verbs 
was and am, in the reply of Jesus, the 



to cast at him : but Jesus hid him- 
self, and went out of the temple, 
I going through the midst of them, 
and so passed by. 

sCh. 10:31, 39 ;& 11: 38. 
tfLu. 4:30. 

former literally signifying became, came 
into existence, was born; the latter, 
simple, continued, and necessary exist- 
ence. This is rendered more emphatic 
by the use of the present tense in ref- 
erence to time anterior to the birth of 
Abraham. It is what is called the uni- 
versal present employed in reference to 
continued existence, embracing the 
past, present, and future. 

59. The rage of his enemies became 
too ungovernable for them to listen to 
him any longer. Conceiving that he 
had uttered blasphemy — which indeed 
he had on the Socinian view — they 
took up stones, and would have killed 
him on the spot, contrary to all law 
and usage in regard to the place of 
punishment (see Numb. 15 : 36 ; 1 Kings 
21:13; Acts 7:58; Heb. 13:11-13), 
had not Jesus eluded their violence in 
the way here mentioned. " Instead of 
worship follows stoning." Stier. The 
idle question has been started by some, 
where they obtained these stones. Re- 
pairs were almost continually going on 
in the temple, which would furnish 
abundance of these missiles. Stier 
cites from Josephus an instance where 
stoning in the temple is narrated. 
Their fury was too sudden and violent 
to warrant us in supposing that they 
went out of the precincts of the temple 
for these stones ; and this also would 
be incongruous with so immediate a re- 
sult, as is indicated by the words Jesus 
hid himself. In regard to this last 
mentioned act, there is no need, with 
Webster and Wilkinson, of supposing a 
miraculous withdrawal of himself (see 
N. on Matt. 4: 3 end), although, as 
Tholuck very justly observes, there is 
an intimation of a special providence 
in the transaction. His hour had not 
yet come (see v. 20). He doubtless 
concealed himself in the crowd of 
friends, who gathered around him to 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER IX. 



215 



CHAPTER IX. 

AND as Jesus passed by, he 
saw a man which was blind 
from his birth. 

2 And his disciples asked him, 



protect him from violence. Went out 
of the temple, as soon as he could do so 
without observation. Going through 
the midst of them. This is not strange 
nor necessarily miraculous, for after 
Jesus had withdrawn himself from their 
observation, they were doubtless en- 
gaged in warmly discussing the points 
of his discourse, and planning their fu- 
ture course of action in reference to 
him. Being thus gathered into groups 
and their attention abstracted from 
every thing around them, he could quite 
easily go through the midst of them, and 
so pass by them to a place of retirement 
and safety. The latter portion of this 
verse, from the words hid himself, is 
regarded as spurious by many of the 
best commentators, but, as it appears 
to me, without sufficient reason. 

CHAPTER IX. 

1-41. A MAN BORN BLIND IS HEALED 
ON THE SABBATH. OUR LORD'S SUBSE- 
QUENT discourses. Jerusalem. In the 
interval between the occurrence with 
which the preceding chapter closed, 
and the healing of this blind man, 
those events took place recorded in 
Luke 10 : 25-42 ; 11 : 1-24. Our Lord 
appears to have returned again to the 
city (on the supposition that he had 
left it temporarily for the reason given 
in 8 : 59), and resumed his public in- 
struction. The rage of his enemies 
had so far subsided, or their prudence 
had so resumed its control of their 
actions, as to render it safe for him to 
appear again in public. I cannot agree 
with Stier, Olshausen, and Webster and 
Wilkinson, that the incident of the 
healing of the blind man took place on 
the same day in which he was driven 
from the temple ; and especially with 
the view of the latter of these com- 
mentators, that it was the last day of 
the feast, for it would crowd that day 
with incidents and discourses which 



saying, Master, a who did sin, this 
man, or his parents, that he was 
born blind ? 



a Yer. 34. 



could not be well compressed into so 
short a period. Besides, as Alford re- 
marks, " the circumstances under which 
Jesus here appears, are too usual and 
tranquil to have succeeded immediate- 
ly to his escape in 7 : 59." To this 
reason for rejecting Stier and Olshau- 
sen's view may be added another. Is 
it to be supposed that when he was 
fleeing for his life from his infuriated 
enemies, that his disciples would re- 
main gathered around him, as the ques- 
tion put in v. 2 presupposes? Is it not 
far more likely that they dispersed in 
different directions, and were not re- 
united to him until he had reached a 
place of safety ? See N. on 10 : 22. 

1. Passed by, i. e. passed along 
through the city. This is the parti- 
ciple of the same verb employed in the 
last clause of the preceding chapter. 
Webster and Wilkinson therefore give 
this explanation: " passing on as just 
related, in his way from the temple." 
There is no doubt that the blind man 
sat near the temple, like the one men- 
tioned in Acts 3 : 2, but this furnishes 
no reason, why the incident here relat- 
ed happened at the time when Jesus 
fled from the temple to avoid being 
stoned. He saw a man, &c. This 
would seem to indicate that no applica- 
tion for aid or restoration to sight had 
been made by the blind man, either to 
Jesus or his disciples. It is probable 
that as our Lord passed along, at sight 
of him he paused in commiseration of 
his unhappy condition. This gave op- 
portunity for the question here pro- 
posed by his disciples. Blind from his 
birth. His blindness was therefore in- 
curable. 

2. It was the commonly entertained 
opinion of the Jews, that severe and 
malignant diseases and all special judg- 
ments, were referable to sins of more 
than ordinary magnitude. It was in 
accordance with this view, that Job's 



216 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



3 Jesus answered, Neither hath 
this man sinned, nor his parents : 
b but that the works of God should 
be made manifest in him. 



&Ch.ll:4. 



three friends attributed his calamities 
to heinous sins of which he must have 
been guilty, to incur to such a fearful 
extent the judgments of God. Natu- 
ral reason would always come to this 
conclusion in regard to special afflic- 
tions, unless enlightened by the word 
of God. Asked him, &c. The disci- 
ples felt assured that Jesus could solve 
the peculiar difficulty which rested upon 
this case. Had the man been stricken 
with blindness some time during his 
life, they would have felt no hesitancy 
in referring the cause to his own per- 
sonal sins. But his blindness from 
birth seemed to fasten the sin, of which 
this was the expression of God's dis- 
pleasure, upon his parents. As to the 
supposed belief of the Jews, that the 
souls of men preexisted before their 
birth into this world, no argument 
whatever can be drawn in proof of this 
from the passage before us ; for while 
it is true that the man could not have 
been the cause of his own blindness, 
unless he had sinned before his birth, 
the whole question turns on the sup- 
posed sin of his parents, the first clause 
being introduced to give the only alter- 
native, without implying that it was 
the probable or even possible cause of 
his calamity. The sentiment is : ' did 
this man sin (before his birth, a thing 
hardly supposable), or his parents which 
is the more probable supposition?' 
Trollope says that it was a Rabbinical 
notion, that unborn babes were capable 
of sin in the womb. His authority for 
this assertion, I have been unable to 
find. That he was born blind, not be- 
came blind, for the calamity itself was 
not so much the object of wonder, as 
that he should have been bom in this 
sad condition. This clause denotes the 
result or effect of the supposed fact, 
that either he or his parents had sinned. 
See N. on Matt. 1 : 22. 

3. Neither hath this man sinned, nor 



4 I 'must work the works of 

him that sent me, while it is day : 

the night cometh, when no man 

can work. 

cCh. 4: 34; & 5: 19, 36: & 11: 9; &12:35';& 
17 : 4. 



his parents, in such a sense as to have 
been the occasion of his blindness. 
There is here no denial of actual trans- 
gression proceeding from a sinful na- 
ture, but simply that it was a special 
judgment inflicted for some sin of great 
enormity committed by him or his pa- 
rents, as was assumed in the question 
proposed by his disciples. But (he was 
born blind) that the works of God (i. e. 
God's power) should be made manifest 
in him, i. e. in his being miraculously 
restored to sight. There is some doubt 
whether the word that, denotes here 
the cause of his being born blind, 
or the result of that great calamity. 
Olshausen adopts the latter view, that 
"it simply denotes the agency of di- 
vine grace, which in the phenomena of 
suffering again opens fountains of hap- 
piness." But with Tholuck, Webster 
and Wilkinson, and Stier, I prefer the 
former of these senses, as suiting better 
the doctrine of divine providence, by 
which every event has its use and de- 
sign, and helps to form a combined 
and harmonious whole. 

4. Our Lord had his prescribed 
work to do, which admitted of no de- 
lay or interruption. I must work the 
works of God, i. e. I must perform 
those miracles of love and mercy, 
which it was designed that I should ac- 
complish when I was sent into the 
world. This is spoken in reference to 
the miraculous cure which he was about 
to effect upon the blind man. There 
can be no doubt that the works of God 
here spoken of, are the miracles of 
healing which our Lord was to perform 
while on earth, and this shows in what 
sense the works of God in v. 3, is to be 
taken. The word day, is here put for 
the allotted time of his earthly minis- 
try ; the night refers to its termination 
by his apprehension and death. The 
sentiment is similar to that of Luke 
13 : 32, 33. A short time previous to 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER IX. 



217 



5 As long 
world, "'I am 
world. 

G When he 



as I 

the 



am in the 
light of the 



had thus spoken, 



dCh. 1:5, 9; & 3:19; & S: 12; & 12:35, 46. 

this, he had narrowly escaped being 
stoned ; but his work was not for that 
reason to cease, inasmuch as here was 
a blind man, whose cure was to give 
occasion for the utterance of several 
great and important truths relative to 
his own character and mission. When 
no man can work. A general and well- 
known truth is here asserted, that 
man's earthly work ceases at the hour 
of his death. Our Lord's allotted work 
on earth would therefore be soon 
brought to a close, by the violent death 
which was to be inflicted upon him. 
As God-man, Mediator, Intercessor, 
and final Judge, he had a great work 
to perform in the future, but here ref- 
erence is had solely to his earthly min- 
istry. 

5. As long as I am in the icorld. 
This explains the preceding phrase, 
while it is day, and shows that no refer- 
ence whatever is had to the waning 
day, which rendered it necessary for 
Jesus to heal the blind man immediate- 
ly, lest the shades of night should in- 
terfere with his benevolent act. / am 
the light of the world, is to be taken in 
a spiritual sense, although suggested by 
the presence of the blind man, to whom 
he was about to impart the gift of nat- 
ural vision. His restoration to sight 
was the type or symbol of the spiritual 
vision, which it was our Lord's province 
to give as the Light of the world. It 
was befitting him while on earth to 
give sight to those naturally as well 
as spiritually blind ; and this verse, 
therefore, confirms and illustrates the 
preceding sentiment, that he was un- 
der a moral necessity to actively dis- 
charge the duties of his ministry, as 
long as he was upon earth, inasmuch 
as he was the light of the world, and 
the spiritual vision of men was so im- 
paired by sin. The repetition of the 
world, in the second member, gives 
emphasis to the antithesis between Je- 
Yol. III.— 10 



e he spat on the ground, and made 
clay of the spittle, and he anoint- 
ed the eyes of the blind man with 
the clay. 



e Ma. 7 : 33 ; & S : 23. 



sus, the source of all moral light, and 
the world, into which he came to im- 
part light and salvation to men. See 
N. on 12:47. 

6. Our Lord now proceeded to give 
sight to the blind man. So far as the 
narrative is concerned, he seems, con- 
trary to his usual habit, to have said 
nothing to the man, either in regard 
to his faith in him, or his desire to be 
healed. As our Lord's reply to the 
question of his disciples (v. 2), had 
doubtless been heard by him, there is 
nothing improbable in the conjecture, 
that he was brought thereby into such 
a state of believing desire, that Jesus, 
who knew his heart, saw fit to effect his 
cure without any preliminary questions, 
as to his faith or desire to be cured of 
his blindness. He spat on the ground. 
Some expositors, who are ever seeking 
to avoid the supernatural in the works 
of Jesus, claim that there was some 
medicinal virtue in this ointment made 
of the ground and spittle. Had there 
been any such virtue, it could only 
have been effective upon eyes rendered 
weak through disease or over use, and 
must have been utterly powerless to 
restore to sight one who had been 
blind from his birth. The act of Jesus 
must be regarded, therefore, as only 
an external sign, serving to establish a 
visible connection between him and 
the blind man, so that all who wit- 
nessed the miracle, might be satisfied 
that the healing virtue was imparted 
from him. See N. on Matt. 8:3. It 
was also designed to awaken and con- 
firm the man's faith, that he underwent 
this process, and was afterwards sent, 
as Naaman was sent to Jordan by 
Elisha (2 Kings 5:10), to the pool of 
Siloam with the directions here given. 
Anointed the eyes ; literally, laid on the 
ointment upon his eyes. The idea is 
that his eyes were well covered with 
the ointment. 



218 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



7 And said unto him, Gro, wash 
^in the pool of Siloam, which is 
by interpretation, Sent. 9 He 
went his way therefore, and wash- 
ed, and came seeing. 

8 The neighbours therefore, 

/Ne. 3:15. 



7. The verb rendered wash, does not 
refer to the ablution of the whole body, 
the Greeks having another word to ex- 
press that idea ; but it is used here of 
the eyes only. It is evident from the 
nature of the case, that the blind man 
must have been conducted by some 
one to the pool, although some persons 
in his condition pass from place to place 
with almost the certainty of those en- 
dowed with vision. The pool of Silo- 
am. See N. on Luke 13:4. Dr. Kob- 
inson locates this pool at the mouth of 
the valley of the Tyropoean. There 
was an upper or northern one, in a 
small reservoir under the western wail 
of the city. From this the stream flows 
about a quarter of a mile to the lower 
pool, and thence onward, a beautiful 
rill, winding its way to the valley of 
Jehoshaphat. Dr. Thomson (Land and 
Book, vol. ii. p. 524) says that it is a 
small rill, which runs across the road 
to some gardens in the valley of Je- 
hoshaphat, and is soon exhausted 
among beds of radishes and cucum- 
bers. Which is by interpretation from 
the Hebrew into the Greek. Se?it, or 
more in accordance with the original 
Hebrew a sending forth, referring 
doubtless in its primary use, to the ar- 
tificial sending forth of water by means 
of a trench or aqueduct. Some ex- 
positors make the name symbolical of 
the water of life sent from above, or 
the renewing power of the Holy Ghost. 
There can hardly be a doubt that John 
referred to its name, as very appropri- 
ate to the sending of this blind man to 
its waters to perfect his cure ; but that 
it was given with the specific prophetic 
view of this act, or as symbolical of 
Christ who was sent into the world, is 
more than we should dare to affirm. 
He went his way ; literally, went away 
to the pool, as he was directed. 



and they which before had seen 
him that he was blind, said, Is 
not this he that sat and begged ? 
9 Some said, This is he : others 
said } He is like him : but he said, 
I am he. 

gSeeZKi. 5:14. 

Washed. The original shows that he 
performed this act himself. And came 
to his own house, as is evident from 
the next verse. The simple terms in 
which this remarkable miracle is relat- 
ed, so different from the usual descrip- 
tion of that which is uncommon and 
marvellous, cannot fail to be observed 
by every intelligent reader. He went, 
washed, and returned seeing. These 
are the great outlines of the picture, 
which are delineated in the original by 
the employment of only seven words. 
But what hopes and fears must have 
agitated this poor man, as he groped 
his way to the pool ; with what trem- 
bling excitement must he have applied 
the water to his eyes ; and above all, how 
sudden and overwhelming the joy with 
which he first had blessed experience 
of light — that glorious gift of heaven, 
to which through all his dark and weary 
pilgrimage up to that hour, he had 
been a stranger. 

8, 9. Neighbors is here taken in its 
usual sense, of those who lived near to 
him. They which before had seen, &c. 
Literally, they who were in the habit of 
seeing him that he was blind. The 
passers-by had often noticed him, and 
hence he was Avell known to many. In 
some editions, the reading is that he 
was a beggar, instead of that he was 
blind. Afford adopts this reading, on 
the ground that his sitting as a beggar, 
was a much more natural question on 
which his identity would turn, than the 
fact of his having been blind. But 
this would seem to me a reason why 
the reading was altered in some Codices 
to a beggar, by over-wise copyists who 
wished to improve on the text. 7s not 
this he, &c. Such an astonishing change 
had been wrought upon him in his res- 
toration to sight, that they who knew 
him best, could hardly believe the evi- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER IX. 



219 



10 Therefore said they unto 
him, How were thine eyes opened ? 

11 He answered and said, h A 
man that is called Jesus made 
clay, and anointed mine eyes, 
and said unto me, Go to the pool 
of Siloam, and wash : and I went 
and washed, and I received sight. 

12 Then said they unto him, 



dence of their senses, that he was the 
same blind beggar, that had so long sat 
by the wayside. The question here is 
of that sort in the original, which im- 
plies an affirmative answer. Some of 
these persons reply in the most posi- 
tive terms, this is lie. Others admit a 
close resemblance, but can hardly be 
persuaded that he is the poor blind 
man, that had so often attracted their 
notice while passing by. He himself 
puts the matter to rest, however, by 
declaring himself to be the very man, 
who a little before was blind. 

10, 11. Therefore in view of so as- 
tonishing a change. How were thine 
eyes opened? The question here pro- 
posed was one of natural curiosity. We 
have no reason to suppose, that they 
were influenced by any sinister motives 
in proposing it. They may have sus- 
pected that it was Jesus, who had 
wrought this miracle upon the man ; 
but of this they had no certain knowl- 
edge, until they were informed of the 
fact by the man himself. His reply 
brought out all the particulars of the 
transaction. It was not however so, 
when he was interrogated by the Phar- 
isees (v. 15), towards whom he was far 
less communicative. I received sic/lit ; 
literally, I saw again, recovered my sight. 
"Without much impropriety a person 
may be said to recover or bo restored to 
that which is the general condition of 
mankind, though individually he was 
never before in that condition. 1 ' Web- 
ster and Wilkinson. 

12. From their officiousness in bring- 
ing this man to the Pharisees, it is evi- 
dent that if the question proposed in 
v. 10 arose from curiosity, the referral 
of the miracle to our Lord so aroused 



Where is he ? He said, I know 
not. 

13 They brought to the Phari- 
sees him that aforetime was 
blind. 

1 -L And it was the sabbath day 
when Jesus made the clay, and 
opened his eyes. 

h Yer. 6, 7. 

their prejudices, that they put the sec- 
ond inquiry as to where Jesus was, 
with evil intention. Some expositors, 
however, put a more favorable con- 
struction both upon the inquiry where 
is he? and their subsequent visit to the 
Pharisees, imputing both these acts to 
a desire to have the matter investigated, 
and the fraud, if any there was in the 
transaction, fully exposed. Such is the 
view of Doddridge. 

13, 14. The Pharisees here referred 
to evidently constituted a tribunal, 
probably, the one sometimes called the 
lesser or petty Sanhedrim. Him that 
aforetime was blind; literally, they 
brought him to the Pharisees, the one 
formerly blind. His previous blind- 
ness is thus referred to in a more em- 
phatic manner, than though the pro- 
noun had been placed in juxtaposition 
with the clause expressive of the pre- 
vious condition of the man. And it 
was the sabbath day, &c. This contains 
the ground of the proceedings sought 
to be instituted by the Pharisees against 
Jesus. It does not constitute the rea- 
son why the man was brought to the 
Pharisees, as some expositors interpret 
the connection. The words when Jesus 
made the clay, are especially inserted, 
because, as Lightfoot has shown, the 
application to the eyes of any oint- 
ment or mixture was forbidden on the 
sabbath day. In the estimation of the 
Pharisees, our Lord had violated the 
sabbath, by having made clay and 
anointed Avith it the eyes of the blind 
man. 

15. Then again in reference to the 
inquiry made before in v. 10. This in- 
quiry is to be regarded in the light of 
a judicial investigation. Hence the 



220 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



15 Then again the Pharisees 
also asked him how he had re- 
ceived his sight. He said unto 
them, He put clay upon mine 
eyes, and I washed, and do see. 

16 Therefore said some of the 
Pharisees, This man is not of 
God, because he keepeth not the 

i Ver. 83 ; ch. 3 : 2. 

man, who seems to have been possess- 
ed of more than ordinary intelligence 
and shrewdness, is more brief and 
guarded in his reply. See N. on v. 11. 
The question as to how he had received 
his sight, is an admission on the part 
of these Pharisees that a miracle had 
been performed on the man ; and yet 
their inference in v. 16, is that the per- 
son whom they acknowledged to have 
wrought the miracle, was a wicked 
man, because he kept not the sabbath. 
Therefore is illative in time, then, upon 
this, and also slightly so in thought ; 
for it introduces a conclusion from 
what had just been said of the mode in 
which Jesus effected the cure, which 
they pretended to regard as labor for- 
bidden by the law of the sabbath. Is 
not of God ; literally, is not from God, 
i. e. is not a prophet, as he declares 
himself to be. They seek to over- 
throw the official standing of Jesus, 
and hence are hasty to express their 
opinion that he can be no true prophet, 
who would thus violate the sabbath. 
They overlooked the beneficent deed 
of Christ, and the evidence, which the 
man was not slow to perceive (see v. 
1*7), that he was a prophet, endowed 
with miraculous powers, and thought 
only of making this an act which they 
might turn to his prejudice. Others 
said, &c. These were probably, Nico- 
demus, Joseph of Arimathea, Gamaliel, 
and others of like integrity of charac- 
ter, who took more correct views of 
this affair. The clause that is a sinner 
(i. c. a contemner and violator of God's 
law), refers to the words not of God, 
in the preceding sentence. The same 
idea is contained in both clauses, 
only the one is positively expressed ; 



sabbath day. Others said, { How 
can a man that is a sinner do 
such miracles ? And k there was 
a division among them. 

17 They say unto the blind 
man again, What sayest thou of 
him, that he hath opened thine 
eyes ? He said, l He is a prophet. 

h Ch. 7 : 12, 43 , & 10 : 19. 
I Oh. 4 : 19 ; & 6 : 14. 

the other, negatively. There were but 
two views that could be taken of Jesus, 
either as one commissioned of God, or 
a most vile and consummate impostor. 
Such miracles, evincing such benevo- 
lence and unheard of power. The mir- 
acles of Jesus all comported with what 
he professed to be — the Messiah of 
God. The tricks of jugglers were as 
unlike the stupendous miracles he per- 
formed, as their low and debased char- 
acter differed from his life of sinless 
purity. This heaven-wide difference 
between his miracles and those pre- 
tended to be wrought by experts in le- 
gerdemain, was fully apprehended by 
the wise and good men of the Sanhe- 
drim, and advanced by them as proof 
positive, that he could not be the im- 
postor they charged him to be. Web- 
ster and Wilkinson remark, that " the 
unbelieving party rely on their one ob- 
jection [the pretended violation of the 
sabbath], in opposition to a great num- 
ber of proofs in his fiivor — the others 
rely on the many proofs [from his mir- 
acles and other sources], as more than 
counterbalancing the single objection." 
A division. See N. on 1 : 43. 

17. As we hear no more on this oc- 
casion, of the party friendly to Jesus, 
it is probable that, finding themselves 
in a decided minority and that their ex- 
postulations were of no avail, they 
either remained silent spectators, or 
else left the assembly. They (i. e. the 
party inimical to Jesus) say unto the 
blind man (so called not from his pres- 
ent but his former condition) again, &c. 
They had before questioned him (v. 
15), and now they resume their inqui- 
ries, hoping that something might be 
elicited from him prejudicial to the 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER IX. 



221 



18 But the Jews did Dot be- 
lieve concerning him, that he had 
been blind, and received his sight, 
until they called the parents of 
him that had received his sight. 

character of Jesus. Hardly in any in- 
stance does their conduct appear so 
pitiably mean, as when by these repeti- 
tious and puerile interrogatories, they 
seek to draw something from this poor 
man, upon which they may found an 
accusation against our Lord. What 
saycst thou, &c. There is here but one 
question, the words, that he hath opened, 
being equivalent to in that he hath 
opened, or, as to his having opened, for 
they could not have expected a denial 
from him that Jesus had restored him 
to sight, which he had twice before af- 
firmed (vs. 11, 15), giving at one time 
all the particulars of the cure wrought 
upon him. The question is simply this : 
1 What hast thou to say in regard to 
what you have already stated, that he 
opened your eyes ? You have heard 
the opinion of others in regard to this 
matter. Let us now have yours.' The 
pronoun in the original is very em- 
phatic, bringing the man in prominent 
contrast with those whose opinions 
have just been given. He said, he is a 
prophet. What a noble and courage- 
ous testimony from this poor and ob- 
scure man, before the most powerful 
and learned of the nation. They could 
see nothing in this wondrous miracle 
but evidence that Jesus was an impos- 
tor ; he felt that no human being with- 
out the aid and favor of God, could 
have performed such a cure, and there- 
fore modestly but boldly avers his be- 
lief, that Jesus is nothing less than a 
prophet. The answer of this man 
shows that the previous question of the 
Pharisees contains but one interroga- 
tion. Some expositors find in the man's 
use of the word prophet, instead of 
Christ, a desire to avoid exasperating 
them too highly. But I should rather 
infer that he had not yet attained to 
the conception of Jesus as the Mes- 
siah. See vs. 35-38, where our Lord 
indoctrinates him into his divine Son- 



19 And they asked them, say- 
ing, Is this your son, who ye say 
was born blind ? how then doth 
he now see ? 



ship, of which he had no previous 
knowledge. 

18. Failing in their attempt to draw 
out something from the man, on which 
they could legally convict Jesus, they 
seek to impair his testimony, by deny- 
ing that he had ever been blind. They 
summon therefore his parents to be in- 
terrogated on this point, hoping to 
intimidate them to some admission of 
deceit in this matter. The Jews (i. e. 
the members of the Sanhedrim) did not 
believe, i. e. they pretended not to be- 
lieve, for sufficient evidence of the 
man's blindness had already been fur- 
nished them in his own statement, cor- 
roborated as it was by the testimony 
of those persons who brought him be- 
fore the council (v. 13). The phrase 
that he had been blind, is added to ex- 
plain the words concerning him, the 
construction in the original being more 
lively and emphatic, than though it 
had been concerning his having been 
blind, or that he had been blind. In 
the words and received Ids sight, the 
denial does not refer to the fact that 
the blind man had now the possession 
of the gift of sight, but that he had 
been blind and recovered power to see, 
as he had stated. Until they had called, 
&c. This does not imply that even 
then, they believed the fact which they 
here deny ; but only that they required 
more evidence, and avowed their de- 
termination to regard the whole affair 
as a wicked fabrication, unless corrobo- 
rated by further and more satisfactory 
testimony. See N. on Matt. 5:18. The 
parents. Ebrard thinks that these were 
aged beggars. But we have no evi- 
dence of this. That had received his 
sight. The definiteness of the asser- 
tion, shows that these words are to 
be conceived as those of the Evange- 
list. 

19. The form of the interrogation 
here put by the Pharisees to the pa- 



222 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



20 His parents answered them 
and said, We know that this is 
our son, and that he was born 
blind : 

21 But by what means he now 
seeth, we know not; or who hath 
opened his eyes, we know not : 

mCh. 7: 13: & 12:42; &19:3S: Ac. 5:13. 



rents of the blind man, is one which 
on its face evinces their doubt that he 
had ever been blind. By thus intimat- 
ing their belief that some deceit had 
been practised, they hope to induce the 
parents to acknowledge it, in order to 
curry favor with persons of such high 
station and influence. Is this your so?}, 
&c. The question is threefold and was 
so understood by the parents. ' Is this 
your son? Do you mean to affirm that 
he was born blind? How then do you 
pretend to account for the fact that he 
now sees ?' This fulness of interroga- 
tion furnished a better opportunity, if 
the parents of the blind man were so 
disposed, for them to deny some one 
or more of the facts here presented, 
and thus to confess for the purpose of 
ingratiating themselves with the rulers, 
that they or their son had been guilty 
of collusion with Jesus, in pretending 
a miracle where there had been none. 
Whom ye say (but probably without 
the shadow of truth) was born blind ; 
literally, that he was born blind, the sub- 
ject of the dependent clause being 
made the object of the principal one 
for the sake of emphasis. 

20, 21. The first two questions of 
the Pharisees are answered by the 
parents of the blind man in the affirma- 
tive ; but in view of the excommunica- 
tion from the synagogue, with which 
they were to be visited who should 
confess that Jesus was Christ (v. 22), 
they are cautious and non-committal in 
regard to the third inquiry. By what 
means, &c. They disavow all knowledge 
of the means by which their son had 
recovered his sight, and in order to 
rid themselves of all complicity in the 
affair, deny that they have any knowl- 
edge whatever of the person who ef- 



he is of age ; ask him : he shall 
speak for himself. 

22 These words spake his pa- 
rents, because '"they feared the 
Jews : for the Jews had agreed 
already, that if any man did 
confess that he was Christ, "he 

n Yer. 34 ; ch. 1G : 2. 



fected the cure. They prudently refer 
the Sanhedrim to their son for the ex- 
planation of this strange affair, and as 
it will appear in the sequel, they 
could not have put the vindication of the 
miracle into better hands. It is not 
necessarily to be inferred, that these 
parents told an untruth in denying all 
knowledge of the means by which 
their son had been restored to sight, 
for they may not yet have had oppor- 
tunity to learn from him the full particu- 
lars of his cure. They could hardly have 
been ignorant, however, of the name of 
the person (see v.l 1) who had performed 
the cure, and were certainly deficient 
in that straightforward boldness which, 
on this occasion, marked the honest 
and manly demeanor of their son. lie 
is of age, i. e. has arrived to years of 
discretion, and is capable of replying 
for himself. Ask him : he shall speak 
for himself i. e. answer in regard to 
his own matters. The repetition of the 
pronoun in these clauses, although ne- 
cessary in the English construction, is 
not so in the Greek, and therefore em- 
phatically indicates the perturbed and 
anxious state of mind of these parents, 
who would thus shift the responsibility 
of replying to the Pharisees upon their 
son, making the most emphatic ref- 
erence to him, as the one who should 
properly be questioned. 

22, 23. These verses contain the rea- 
son why his parents devolved the respon- 
sibility of replying to the Pharisees, upon 
their son. It is a fair inference that it 
was fear rather than ignorance, which 
kept them from naming Jesus as the 
author of the cure. The question is 
open, however, how far they had been 
made acquainted with the particulars 
of the miracle (sec N. on v. 21). For 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTTER IX. 



223 



should be put out of the syna 
e;o£;ue. 
o 



23 Therefore said his parents, 
e is of age ; ask him. 
2-i Then again called they the 



the Jews (i. e. the Sanhedrim) had 
agreed, &c. We are not informed as 
to the time when this agreement was 
made. It could not, however, hare 
been a long time previous. Per- 
haps it was in the interval between his 
escape from the temple (S : 59), and his 
reappearance in public on this present 
occasion. Reference is had no doubt 
to an agreement or understanding, 
which was noised about among the 
people, and not to any formal or writ- 
ten decree of the Sanhedrim. Did con- 
fess, i. e. openly acknowledge. That 
he (Jesus) was Christ. Had the parents 
referred the miracle to the healing pow- 
er of Jesus, they feared that this would 
have been regarded by the Sanhedrim, 
as a virtual confession that Jesus was 
the Messiah. They are too honest to 
admit that any deceit was practised, as 
the Pharisees hoped they might be 
overawed to do ; and yet too timid to 
make any avowal, which would com- 
promise them as the followers of Je- 
sus. He shoidd be put out of the syna- 
gogue, i. e. should be excommunicated. 
There were three kinds or stages of 
excommunication. " The first contin- 
ued thirty days, the person being de- 
barred the bath, shaving the head, and 
any nearer approach to another, than 
four cubits ; he was a mourner, but 
might be present at public assemblies. 
If he remained obstinate at the end of 
thirty days, the second kind was super- 
added ; by which he was laid under a 
heavy curse, was excluded from all as- 
semblies, and from all intercourse with 
others. The third species mentioned 
by the later Rabbins, who describe it 
as an utter and perpetual exclusion 
from all the privileges of the Jewish 
people, both civil and religious." Rob. 
Lex. This third form of excision was 
oftentimes punishment by death. See 
N. on 16 : 2. It was probably the first 
of these forms here referred to, to be 



man that -was blind, and said unto 
him, ° Give God the praise : p we 
know that this man is a sinner. 

o Jos. 7 : 19 ; 1 Sa. 6 : 5. p Yer. 16. 



followed by the others, unless the ban 
were removed on evidence of repent- 
ance. Therefore through fear of incur- 
ring this sentence of excommunication. 
It shows how terrible was this ban of 
excision, that these parents, rejoicing as 
they must have done over their son 
thus unexpectedly restored to sight, 
should have yielded to their fears, and 
exposed him to the dangers from which 
they themselves shrunk in dismay. 

24. Finding that they could elicit 
nothing from the parents, which would 
be condemnatory of Jesus, or throw 
suspicion on the genuineness of the 
miracle, they recall the man, who dur- 
ing the examination of his parents had 
been caused to withdraw from the 
court, and in blustering tone, demand- 
ed of him that he should give God the 
praise, and no longer attribute his cure 
to a man who was a sinner. Such ap- 
pears to be the obvious sense of the 
passage, although Stier, Olshausen, and 
Alford, take the words give God the 
praise, as a solemn adjuration to tell 
the truth, and acknowledge that there 
was some error or deception in the mat- 
ter. But this is a forced interpretation, 
and the reference to Josh. 7 : 19 is not 
in point, for the glory there to be given 
to the God of Israel, as is evident from 
the next verse, is repentance and con- 
fession of sin to God ; while confession 
to man or the revelation to Joshua of 
the truth, is urged upon Achan in sep- 
arate and distinct terms. This transla- 
tion, moreover, assumes that the Phar- 
isees were still disposed to deny that 
the man had been blind and restored 
to sight ; a thing very improbable, when 
the testimony of the parents in these 
particulars so fully corroborated that 
of their son. It is better to consider 
the question as resulting from a change 
of tactics, so to speak, which was to 
acknowledge the miracle wrought upon 
the man, but attribute it to the direct 



224 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



25 He answered and said, 
Whether he be a sinner or no, I 
know not : one thing I know, 
that, whereas I was blind, now I 
see. 

26 Then said they to him 



power of God, with which Jesus had no 
connection other than a pretended one. 
The sentiment then would be : ' We ac- 
knowledge that you have been won- 
drously endowed with the gift of sight, 
but let God have the glory of the trans- 
action, for we know that this man is a sin- 
ner.'' The pronoun we, is in the original 
emphatic, and imparts this sense: '■toe 
the highest council in the land, in 
view of all the circumstances, have now 
deliberately formed this judgment of 
his character, and we expect from you 
a ready acquiescence in our superior 
wisdom and discernment.' This view 
makes the answer of the man pertinent, 
which would be far otherwise, if the 
other interpretation is the true one. 
We are the more confirmed in this ex- 
position by Luke 17 : 18 ; and Acts 12 : 
23, where this form of expression is 
used in the sense which is usually given 
to the passage before us. The two 
clauses, give God praise (the article is 
wanting in the original), and we know 
that this man is a sinner, are evidently 
antithetic ; God the Giver of all good 
and Author of all mercies being con- 
trasted with a low and worthless im- 
postor, who would arrogate to himself 
the glory of this miraculous cure which 
was to be referred to God alone. 

25. The man prudently forbears to 
argue the question as to the character 
of Jesus, but sturdily repeats his state- 
ment, that he was once blind but now 
was restored to sight. He had no need 
to repeat the name of him who had per- 
formed so miraculous a cure. His re- 
affirming one item of his story was a 
reaffirmance of the whole. Hence the 
Pharisees in their impotent endeavors to 
make something out of this transaction, 
begin to question him again on the man- 
ner in which Jesus effected the cure, 
hoping even yet to draw something 



again, What did he to thee ? how 
opened he thine eyes ? 

27 He answered them, I have 
told you already, and ye did not 
hear : wherefore would ye hear 
it again ? will ye also be his dis- 
ciples ? 



from his examination prejudicial to 
Jesus, or at least which would impugn 
the man's veracity. 

26, 21. To their reiterated inquiries 
as to the particulars of his cure, the 
man refuses to repeat the story, refer- 
ring them to his former statement, and 
boldly and with somewhat of irritation 
charging them with wilful unbelief. / 
have told you already (or just now). He 
had twice before related the essential 
particulars of his cure, once to his 
neighbors and acquaintances (v. 11), 
and again to the Sanhedrim (v. 15). 
Ye did not hear, i. e. did not believe 
my statement. It was not necessary 
for him to learn this from any positive 
declaration on their part. Their con- 
temptuous opinion of Jesus (v. 24), 
who he felt assured was a prophet, 
was sufficient evidence that they re- 
jected his statement. WJierefore, i. e. 
to what purpose. The question is a 
strong denial on his part of the utility of 
repeating the story of his cure. Will 
ye also (as well as I, and others to 
whom I have told the circumstances of 
my cure) be his disciples? The em- 
phasis given in the original to the pro- 
noun ye, opposes with the keenest 
irony the reference here made to their 
discipleship, to the judgment which in 
v. 24, they declared themselves to have 
formed in regard to the character of 
Jesus. It is as though the man had 
said : ' Is there any hope that such un- 
believers as you will ever become the 
disciples of the man whom you so bit- 
terly hate ?' So Alford explains : ' You 
seem so anxious to hear particulars 
about him, that you must surely be in- 
tending to become his disciples.' The 
man's words are full of honest scorn 
and indignation at their injustice and 
hypocrisy. 

28. Stung to the quick at such a re- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER IX. 



225 



28 Then they reviled him, and 
said, Thou art his disciple; but 
we are Moses' disciples. 

29 We know that God spake 
unto Moses: as for this fellow, 
q we know not from whence he is. 

ply from one so much their inferior, in- 
stead of rebuking with dignity his want 
of respect for the presence in which he 
stood, they lose their temper and fall 
to abusing and railing at him. Then, 
better therefore, as their abuse was the 
result of his courageous and cutting re- 
ply. They'reviled him and said ; liter- 
ally, they reviled him, saying, i. e. they 
taunted him with the words here spoken. 
TJiou art his disciple, but do not imag- 
ine that we have any such intention, 
for we are Hoses 1 disciples. What 
he had said in irony, they pretended to 
receive as words spoken in earnest. 
They did this in order to contrast con- 
temptuously Jesus of Nazareth with 
Moses their great lawgiver. The em- 
phatic words are thou and we, but the 
antithesis really lies in the false as- 
sumption, that one who was the dis- 
ciple of Moses could not be Christ's 
disciple. This is still further expanded 
in the next verse, where they intimate 
that Moses and Jesus acted under far 
different commissions. 

29. We know that God spahe, &c. 
Their knowledge of the divine legation 
of Moses, was derived from the very 
same kind of evidence which they re- 
jected as proof of the divine mission 
of Jesus (see Ex. 4:1-9, 29-31). Our 
Lord performed far more numerous 
and stupendous miracles, as the cre- 
dentials of his mission, than did Moses. 
The pronoun we, in this clause is also 
emphatic, there being an implied con- 
trast between their superior discern- 
ment in thus recognizing and adhering 
to the claims of Moses, and the man's 
folly and ignorance in becoming a dis- 
ciple of Jesus. Their continued em- 
ployment of the emphatic we, is also in 
keeping with their egotistical and con- 
ceited arrogance, as the professed spir- 
itual guides of the nation. As for this 
fellow, &c. More literally, this (see N. 
Vol. III.— 10* 



80 The man answered and 
said unto them r Why herein is a 
marvellous thing, that ye know 
not from whence he is, and yet he 
hath opened mine eyes. 

q Ch. S : 14. r Ch. 3 : 10. 

on Matt. 2G : Gl ; 27 : 21)— we know not, 
&c. If a brief pause is supposed after 
the pronoun this, as though they had 
no language to express their profound 
disgust at his claims and character, the 
contemptuous sense of the word would 
appear without supplying fellow, as is 
done in our version. We knoio not 
from whence he is, i. c. from what source 
he derives his commission. That this 
is the sense is clearly shown from the 
antithesis between these words and the 
preceding declaration, we know that 
God spake unto Moses and commission- 
ed him to be the leader and lawgiver 
of Israel. It is worthy of remark that 
in thus giving utterance to their con- 
tempt of Jesus, they arc betrayed into 
a confession of the same ignorance 
which he charged upon them in 8: 14. 
As in view of the abundant proof which 
he gave of his divine mission, their ig- 
norance was their sin, they stood con- 
victed and condemned from their own 
mouth. In the words we know not, &c, 
their eye is on something more than his 
earthly descent, and they maliciously 
insinuate that our Lord's commission 
was from the powers of evil. See 
Matt. 12 : 24. 

30. The bold and manly defence 
which this poor despised man now 
makes of his benefactor, whom he had 
yet never seen (see N. on v. 35), is 
worthy of all admiration. Why herein, 
" in such a case as that before us." 
Tholuck. The original implies an el- 
lipsis : 'ye speak absurdly, for herein is 
a marvellous thing;'' or according to the 
conjectural reading, Hhis one thing is 
marvellous, indeed much more so than 
even my cure, that ye know not whence 
he is (he enlightens them on this point 
in v. 33), and yet (i.e. although) he hath 
openedmy eyes." 1 The sentiment is that it 
was strange that persons of their supe- 
rior opportunities and qualifications for 



226 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



31 Now we know that * G-od 
heareth not sinners : but if any 



s Job 27 : 9 ; & -35 : 12 ; Ps. IS : 41 ; & 34 : 15 ; & 

66: 18; Pr. 1 :28;'& 15: 29; & 28: 9; Is. 1 : 15; 

Je. 11:11: & 14:12; Ez. 8:18; Mi. 8:4; Zee. 

7:13. 



riving at the truth, should be at loss to 
know the character and claims of Jesus, 
when he had wrought such a stupen- 
dous miracle. The argument refers to 
the very kind of evidence offered by 
Moses in proof of his divine commis- 
sion. He had performed miracles, and 
the whole nation down to Christ's time 
had believed in his divine legation. 
Our Lord had perfoi*med still greater 
miracles, one of which had its exempli- 
fication in the man who was now ad- 
dressing them, and yet they professed 
not to know from whence he was. 
This was wonderful indeed, so much so 
as to transfer all admiration from the 
man who was healed, to the folly, stu- 
pidity, and unbelief of the council be- 
fore whom he stood for examination. 

31. The speaker proceeds to argue 
and apply to the case in hand, the prin- 
ciple which he had virtually laid down, 
that a miracle, such as Jesus had per- 
formed, was a sufficiently clear indica- 
tion of the source of his commission. 
" The seeing man begins to lead and 
teach the blind, lays down the univer- 
sal proposition, the truth well known in 
Israel for which he asserts the we know 
of all, in order that he may then in vs. 
32, 33, through the case in hand, ar- 
rive by the soundest logic at a certain 
and irrefragable conclusion." Stier. 
We know. It is a matter of universal 
knowledge. The pronoun, according 
to the usual construction where no 
special emphasis is intended, is omitted 
in the original, its presence being indi- 
cated by the termination of the verb. 
The modesty of the man's assertion is 
thus placed in striking contrast with 
their arrogant we know in v. 30. Hear- 
eth not sinners. He holds them in such 
abhorrence that he never imparts to 
them the gift of working miracles. On 
the absence of all evidence that wicked 
men have ever wrought miracles, sec 



man be a worshipper of God, and 
doeth his will, him he heareth. 

32 Since the world began was 
it not heard that any man opened 
the eyes of one that was born 
blind. 

N. on Matt. 1 : 22. To the citations 
there made, the present text may be 
added in proof, that none but those 
whom God loves and approves of, have 
ever been endowed with miraculous 
power. Were it otherwise, our Lord 
could hardly have appealed to his works 
as incontrovertible proof of his Messiah- 
ship. But if any man, &c. This is the 
converse of the preceding proposition. 
The argument is this : ' A good man is 
the only one whom God hears and en- 
dows with the power to work miracles. 
As Jesus had beyond all question 
wrought a great miracle, it was certain 
evidence that God had heard him, and 
that he was therefore a good man.' 
This would presuppose that he was a 
man of veracity, and to be believed in 
all which he affirmed in regard to his 
character and mission. 

32. Having thus laid down the well 
established principle, that God grants 
special favors to none but those whom 
he hears, the speaker challenges the 
Pharisees to bring forward another in- 
stance, where a man who was born 
blind had been restored to perfect 
vision, as in his case. The greatness 
and strangeness of the miracle is very 
properly advanced, as an argument 
that the divine mission of Jesus admits 
of no doubt. The reasoning of the 
man may be reduced to a syllogism': 
'None but those whom God approves 
can work a miracle — Jesus has wrought 
an unprecedented miracle — therefore 
Jesus is approved of God.' Thus in 
the most brief and masterly manner, 
did this poor man establish and illus- 
trate the point from which he started, 
that in view of the works of Jesus, it 
was wonderful that they did not know 
whence he was. No inference is to be 
drawn from this passage, or from any 
other in the Bible, that God hears all 
good men in such a sense as to endow 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER IX. 



227 



33 ' If this man were not of 
God, lie could do nothing. 

34 They answered and said 
unto him, " Thou wast altogether 
born in sins, and dost thou teach 
us ? And they cast him out. 

t Ver. 16. u Ver. 2. 

them with miraculous powers. The 
argument is simply that no bad man 
can furnish this testimony of God's 
favor and approbation, which is only 
theirs who are the objects of his love, 
and to whom he has assigned some 
special commission. Since the world 
began. See X. on Luke 1 : 70. Was it 
not heard. The man speaks of this as 
an unprecedented cure of one born 
blind. The assertion was not a loose 
one, for we have no account in the 
Bible of the previous performance of 
such a miracle, much less by a man 
acting without a commission from God. 
TIi at was born blind. Our Lord him- 
self had healed the blind in great num- 
bers, but in no recorded instance were 
any of them blind from their birth. 

33. This verse is the conclusion or 
inference, the argument ending with 
the preceding verse. Were not of God. 
This is a triumphant reply to their we 
know not from whence he is, in v. 29. 
Nothing, k ' not only of those things 
which he himself does, but of any of 
the things done by excellent men." 
Bengel. 

34. TItou wast altogether (literally, 
the whole, the whole of thee, body and 
soul) born in sins. They are so trans- 
ported with rage, at his severe and well 
merited rebuke, that they demean 
themselves so far as to reproach him 
with his blindness, from birth, that be- 
ing regarded by them as positive proof 
that there was a great sin lying some- 
where as the cause. See N. on v. 2. 
Trench remarks that they had forgotten 
how their charge that he was an im- 
postor, having never been blind as he 
alleged, disagreed from their present 
one, in which they bring forward his 
blindness from birth, as a proof of his 
great wickedness. Dost thou teach us ? 
The pronouns are strongly emphatic 



35 Jesus heard that they had 
cast him out ; and when he had 
found him, he said unto him, 
Dost thou believe on x the Son of 
God? 

x Mat. 14:83: 



£16:16: 
1 Jo. 5 



Ma. 1:1; ch. 10:36: 
13. 



in the original and impart to their 
question this sense : ' Do you a misera- 
ble, sinful wretch, blind from your very 
birth, presume to teach us, the most 
learned and pious of the nation?' The 
words are imbued with the very spirit 
of Pharisaism. They cast him out, 
from their council chamber or hall 
where they held their session. This 
indignity was also a virtual act of ex- 
communication (see v. 22), which at 
the proper time they no doubt passed 
upon him. 

35, 36. Jesus heard, kc. This shows 
that the act of casting the man out 
had principal reference to his exclusion 
from the congregation (see v. 22) ; for 
his mere ejection from the room in 
which he had been examined, would 
not have received such particular men- 
tion. When he had found him ; liter- 
ally, and having found him. The idea 
of previous search for the man is here 
implied. How long a time intervened 
between the man's expulsion from the 
court, and his interview with Jesus, we 
have no means of knowing. It may have 
been one day or several. The latter 
supposition is the more probable, as it 
was not until the report of the transac- 
tion had come to the ear of Jesus, that 
he sought him as here recorded. Dost 
thou believe, &c. Some commentators 
suppose the sense to be : ' Hast thou a 
belief in the coming Messiah ?' But 
the question in this sense would have 
had no force or meaning, inasmuch as 
the whole nation believed in a coming 
Messiah. The inquiry rather assumes 
that this personage had already made 
his advent, and challenges the man's 
belief in him. Hence the answer is who 
is he (equivalent to where is he), that I 
might (properly and literally may) be- 
lieve on him? The man had from the 
very outset regarded his benefactor as 



228 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



36 He answered and said, Who 
is he, Lord, that I might believe 
on him ? 



a prophet. His argument "with the 
Pharisees (vs. 24-34) had enlarged and 
strengthened his faith in him as one 
commissioned of God. He had thus 
been gradually brought into a state of 
mind favorable to the revelation of his 
Messiahship, which Jesus was now about 
to make to him. But instead of pro- 
posing the question in the naked form, 
' Dost thou believe in me as the Son 
of God?' our Lord so shaped his in- 
quiry, as to inspire the man with a 
rising hope that the Messiah had al- 
ready come, and that peradventure his 
benefactor himself might be that great 
personage. With trembling hope he 
therefore inquires who is he, Lord, (tell 
me) that I may believe on him ? He 
thus avows his readiness to acknowl- 
edge him, whenever he may be permit- 
ted to behold him. The frankness and 
simplicity of this man's character, to- 
gether with his courageous defence of 
Jesus before the Sanhedrim, make him 
one of the most remarkable charac- 
ters to be found on the page of sacred 
history. Olshausen thinks that the 
Jews were not acquainted with the 
Messianic signification of Son of God, 
much less this common man, and that 
therefore his question was virtually 
"what am I to understand by the Son 
of God? 1 ' But that the Jews under- 
stood the meaning of the term, is evi- 
dent from Matt. 8 : 29 ; 14 : 33 ; 26 : 63 ; 
Mark 3:11; Luke 4 : 41 ; John 20 : 31, 
and from the Old Testament predictions, 
where the future Messiah is referred to, 
as God's Son. See 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 
2 : 7. Some expositors have doubted 
whether the man immediately recog- 
nized Jesus, as the one who had effect- 
ed his cure, since he had never before 
seen him. But when it is remembered 
how acute is the hearing of persons 
deprived of sight, and what other rea- 
sons existed in the remarkable words 
which were spoken to the man, why the 
tones as well as sentiment should have 



37 And Jesus said unto him, 
Thou hast both seen him, and y it 
is he that talketh with thee. 
y Ch. 4 : 26. 



been impressed deeply in his recollec- 
tions, we cannot for a moment doubt 
that he recognized Jesus as soon as he 
accosted him. 

37, 38. Thou hast both seen him. The 
allusion to the man's recovery of sight 
is too striking to be overlooked. There 
is also a gradual approach to the full 
revelation of Jesus' Messiahship, in the 
words it is he that talketh with thee, 
which comports well with the dignify 
of the speaker, and serves to gradually 
develop the man's faith, and concen- 
trate it at last in all the fulness of love 
and devotion upon Jesus as the true 
Messiah. Noble and courageous was 
the testimony which he had borne to 
his benefactor, whom not yet having 
seen, he had loved (1 Pet. 1 : 8). ]S T ow r 
he is rewarded with a more explicit 
declaration of our Lord's Messiahship, 
than had been made to any one before, 
save the woman of Samaria (4 : 26). 
The revelation in each case was one 
and the same, although to her he pro- 
claimed himself as the Messiah ; to this 
man, as the Son of God. Webster 
and Wilkinson remark that the latter 
revelation involves the former, but 
comprehends much more. Lord, I be- 
lieve. "The lowliness and j'ielding 
spirit of the man toward Jesus, is in 
touching contrast with the defiant bear- 
ing he maintains toward the leaders of 
the people." Tholuck. He had been 
gradually brought, as has been remarked, 
into that state of humble belief in the 
power and goodness of his unknown 
benefactor, that he no sooner heard the 
precious and important truth just an- 
nounced, than his heart yielded assent, 
and with a simple confession of faith, 
Lord, I believe, he prostrated himself 
before the Being, who had stooped in 
such wondrous condescension to one of 
his low and miserable condition, and 
endowed him with the twofold blessing 
of natural and spiritual vision. He 
worshipped him. This was not here 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER IX. 



229 



38 And he said, Lord, I be- 
lieve. And he worshipped him. 

39 H And Jesus said, a For 
judgment I am come into this 

merely the homage paid by an inferior 
to a superior. When the circumstan- 
ces are all taken into account, I cannot 
but think that the act partook of the 
nature of the worship paid to Jesus 
after his ascension by the apostles and 
disciples. The revelation was so full 
and explicit, and doubtless accompanied 
by the impartation of such gracious 
influences, that the man was far in ad- 
vance of many who had been for a long 
time with Jesus, in the true estimation 
of his divine character. 

39. Doddridge supposes that these 
words were uttered for the special in- 
struction of those who had gathered 
around Jesus, while he was conversing 
with this man. Such also is Web- 
ster and Wilkinson's view. Alford, on 
the other hand, places some interval 
of time between the interview with the 
man and the words here spoken, the 
narrative being taken up at a subse- 
quent time, when the miracle became 
the subject of general discourse. We 
can hardly suppose that our Lord re- 
vealed himself to the man as the Son 
of God, in the presence of a surround- 
ing throng of persons, to whom, after 
the man had performed his act of 
prostration, he turned and addressed 
the words here spoken. It is far more 
natural to suppose a short interval of 
time at least between the two verses. 
Tholuck thinks that this language, like 
that in Matt. 11 : 25, is to be regarded 
as words uttered aloud in soliloquy by 
our Lord, and suggested by what had 
occurred immediately before. But 
even if spoken in soliloquy, it appears 
from v. 40, that the words were heard 
by "some of the Pharisees who were 
with him," and the question again re- 
turns, whether Jesus would have de- 
clared himself to the man as the Son 
of God in the presence and hearing of 
persons standing by, some of whom 
were his most bitter enemies, and would 
have seized upon such an open avowal 



world, a that they which see not 
might see; and that they which 
see might be made blind. 

z Ch. 5 : 22, 27. See ch. 3 : IT ; & 12 : 47. 
a Mat. 13 : 13. 

of his divine character and mission, as 
the foundation for a charge of blasphe- 
my against him, as they did when he 
announced himself to be the Son of 
God in the palace of the high priest 
(see Matt. 26:63-66; Mark 14:61- 
64; Luke 22:67-71). A short inter- 
val of time, sufficient at least for the 
people to assemble themselves togeth- 
er, is the only view which is clear of 
difficulties. For judgment, &c. Our 
Lord frequently drew the theme of his 
conversation from some circumstance 
which had served to arrest the atten- 
tion of the people. This is seen in the 
present instance. The word, judgment, 
has primary reference here to actual 
judgment, the form in the original de- 
noting the effect rather than the process 
of judging. The completeness and per- 
fection of the work are thus rendered 
prominent. But it comprises also the 
separating, discriminating process, by 
which men are divided from one an- 
other by a reference, not to outward 
circumstances or profession, but to 
their true character. Those who made 
no pretensions to sight, and who were 
desirous to receive the gift of vision, 
like this poor man, would be endowed 
therewith ; but those who professed 
themselves above all need of spiritual 
illumination, would be suffered to re- 
main in that state of fatal blindness in 
which they really were. The same 
sentiment is referred to in Matt. 9:13. 
The word rendered that, does not here 
denote cause or purpose, but result. 
See N. on v. 2 ; also Matt. 1 : 22. Our 
Lord did not come into the world for 
such a purpose of condemning judg- 
ment, that it could only be subserved 
by the judicial blindness of some. This 
would deprive the plan of redemption 
of its highest glory. But the effect of 
his advent, in the case of the persons 
here referred to, would be seen in this 
result. Although his errand was to 
seek and to save those who were lost, 



230 



JOHN 



[A. D. 33. 



40 And some of the Pharisees 
which were with him heard these 
words, b and said unto hiin, Are 
we blind also ? 



6Eo. 2:19. 



yet so testing and searching were his 
doctrines and requisitions, and so un- 
congenial to the proud and carnal na- 
ture of man, that the result would be a 
division like that here spoken of ; the 
means made use of to enlighten and 
save, becoming productive of the very 
opposite result in those who chose to 
walk in the light of their own fire, and 
the sparks that they have kindled (Isa. 
50 : 11). Tliey which see not, i. e. those 
who are spiritually blind and sensible 
of their lost condition. Might see, i. e. 
be brought into the light and life of 
the gospel, and experience its healing, 
sanctifying power. They which see. 
The antithesis resides in the different 
views which this class of persons 
have of their spiritual condition. All 
are alike spiritually blind, but some are 
sensible of this, and betake themselves 
to Christ to be healed ; others are in- 
sensible to their ruined state, and con- 
sequently reject every invitation of the 
gospel, and make no effort to be saved. 
Might be made blind ; literally, might be- 
come blind, i. e. become more and more 
confirmed in their blindness and carnal 
stupidity. The word does not imply 
that they were not originally blind, 
but the reference here is to the in- 
creasing spiritual blindness and hard- 
ness of heart, which result from a life 
of impenitence and unbelief. The 
principle is fully exemplified in Matt. 
13 : 11-15, on which see Notes. 

40. The Pharisees, ever on hand 
with their captious and ensnaring 
questions, inquire whether he in- 
cludes them also in the number of 
those whom he pronounces to be 
blind. Perhaps they hoped he would 
charge them directly with gross spir- 
itual blindness, which they could 
make a ground of accusation against 
him, as one who maligned the rulers 
of the people (see Acts 23 : 5). Some 
expositors maintain that the Pharisees 



41 Jesus said unto them, c If 
ye were blind, ye should have no 
sin : but now ye say, We see ; 
therefore your sin remaiceth. 

cCh. 15:22, 24. 

purposely misunderstand Jesus to be 
here speaking of physical blindness. 
But this would deprive the question of 
all force and pertinency. Stier hits 
the true sense of the question : ' Are 
we then already become blind in thy 
sight ? Must we then also become thy 
disciples that we may see ?' There can 
be no doubt that the word blind, in 
this verse, is to be taken in the same 
sense which it obviously has in v. 39. 

41. If ye were blind, i. e. if you were 
really ignorant in spiritual matters, and 
if your opportunities and powers were 
so limited, that you had an imperfect 
understanding of the requisitions of 
God^s law, you would be comparatively 
sinless (see 15 : 22, 24). The hypo- 
thetical form if ye were blind, is equiva- 
lent to the direct negative, ye are not 
blind, or ye shoidd have no sin, i. e. you 
would be free from the sin of wilful un- 
belief. "Ye would have your sins re- 
moved by coming to me for sight." 
Prof. Crosby. But now ye say, i. e. 
whereas now you boastingly say. The 
present tense refers to this as their 
habitual language. We see, i. e. we 
are far superior in knowledge to the 
people, and rightly assume the office 
of spiritual guides. All their Phari- 
saic pride, hypocrisy, and rejection of 
the true light, are concentrated in this 
boastful claim to spiritual knowledge 
here charged as being made by them. 
In awful juxtaposition to their claim of 
perfect spiritual vision, are our Lord's 
words, therefore your sin remaincth. 
The sin here especially referred to was 
the rejection of Jesus as their Messiah. 
Resulting as it did from an obstinate 
and infatuated determination to con- 
tinue in unbelief and sin, it remained 
in all its force, proof against every ef- 
fort which might be made for its re- 
moval. It is implied that the sin of 
the Pharisees was enhanced by their 
superior education and privileges, 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER X. 



231 



CHAPTER X. 

TTERILY, verily, I say unto 

V you, He that entereth not by 

which they possessed over the common 
people. Had this led them to Christ, 
it would have been to them one of the 
highest blessings, but connected as it 
was with spiritual pride and unbelief, 
it served only to aggravate their con- 
demnation. 

CHAPTER X. 

1-21. Christ the Good Shepherd. 
Jerusalem. The words, verily, eerily, 
in John never commence a new dis- 
course, and the thought also is so in- 
timately connected with that which 
goes before, that critics are gen- 
erally united in the opinion that this 
discourse is the continuation of the 
preceding one. See X. on v. 21. The 
Pharisees assumed that they were 
the true spiritual guides of the people. 
To every conviction of error brought 
home to them by the searching words 
of Jesus, they virtually replied in their 
stupid and deeply seated infatuation 
and pride, ice see. Our Lord now, by a 
sort of parabolic representation, makes 
a discrimination between true and false 
shepherds, and shows that these self- 
constituted guides of the people were 
false teachers and unworthy of confi- 
dence. 

In regard to the general division and 
train of thought in this chapter, in vs. 
1-5, are given the marks and properties 
of the true and false shepherd ; in 7-9, 
Christ declares himself to be the door 
of the fold; in v. 10, he contrasts him- 
self with those whose only object is to 
devour and destroy the flock; in vs. 
11-13, he contrasts his readiness to lay 
down his life for the flock, with the 
treacherous and cowardly conduct of 
those who are mere hirelings, and who 
flee on the first approach of danger, 
leaving their flocks to be destroyed by 
beasts of prey; in vs. 14-18, he shows 
that the parable spoken in vs. 1-5, has 
reference to himself, the good shep- 
herd, who as essentially one with the 
Father (v. 15) lays down his life for the 
sheep ; the Jews being divided in re- 



the door into the sheepfold, but 
climbeth up some other way, the 
same is a thief and a robber. 

gard to him (vs. 19-23), demand that 
he shall tell them in plain terms 
whether he is the Christ (v. 2-1) ; he re- 
plies that his works sufficiently prove 
this (v. 25), but not being his true 
sheep which no one can take from him, 
they believe not (vs. 26-29); he de- 
clares his essential unity with the Fa- 
ther (v. 30), at which the Jews being 
enraged seek to kill him (vs. 31-39); 
he escapes from them, and goes again 
beyond Jordan, where many believe 
on him (vs. 40-42). 

1. Verily, verily. The importance 
of the instruction which our Lord was 
about to impart, and the attention 
with which it was to be received, are 
indicated by this solemn form of assev- 
eration, with which he introduced his 
most grave and important discourses. 
He that entereth not, &c. A very sim- 
ple but clear criterion of the character 
and purpose of those who do not enter 
the fold by the door, especially when 
spiritually interpreted in the light of 
our Lord's declaration in v. 9, that he is 
the door through which both entrance 
and egress are to be made to and from 
the fold. The spiritual application is 
so clear and easy, that all who listened 
to this parable must have perceived 
that Jesus was placing himself in strik- 
ing contrast with the scribes and Phar- 
isees, whose influence as false religious 
teachers was so disastrous to the na- 
tion. Sheepfold ; literally, the fold for 
the sheep. The word rendered fold, 
although properly referring to any 
yard, court, or enclosed space in the 
open air, is here used of the sheepfold, 
into which the flocks were driven at 
the close of each day, for protection 
from wild beasts, robbers, and oth- 
er casualties to which they would be 
exposed in the night. But climbeth up 
(over the enclosure) some other way; 
literally, from some other quarter, the 
preposition imparting to the expression 
the pregnant sense, but climbeth tip and 
entereth from some other quarter than 
the door of the fold. The same is an 



232 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



2 But lie that entereth in by 
the door is the shepherd of the 
sheep. 

3 To him the porter openeth ; 

emphatic repetition of he, in the first 
member of the sentence. Thief and 
robber. The former of these words 
signifies one who steals or pilfers in se- 
cret ; the latter, one who makes an 
open attack, and robs and plunders by 
violence. 

2. Placed in striking contrast with 
the foregoing mark of a false shepherd, 
is the infallible sign here given, by 
which the true shepherd may be known. 
He that entereth in, &c. This being 
his mode of entrance, he never resorts 
to the other, which would not only be 
less easy and expeditious, but would be 
likely to impair the hedge surrounding 
the fold. 

3. The porter, i. e. the under shep- 
herd, whose duty it was to watch the 
gate and open it for the chief shepherd. 
Notwithstanding the subordinate posi- 
tion of the porter in this parable (v. 6), 
and the fact that he is only here al- 
luded to, there has been much said by 
expositors, especially those who are in- 
clined to be somewhat fanciful, in re- 
gard to the spiritual reference of this 
feature of the parable. Some have re- 
garded the porter as representing the 
Holy Spirit, through whom the door 
which Christ declares himself to be (v. 
*7), is opened for all the true sheep of 
the flock. Others refer the porter to 
Christ's ministers, those faithful pastors, 
who like the true sheep recognize the 
Good Shepherd, and admit and welcome 
him to the fold. There seems to be no 
necessity, however, of pressing this cir- 
cumstance of the parable to any dis- 
tinct or special reference, its introduc- 
tion being designed principally to give 
life and verisimilitude to the narration. 
The object in view is to show that the 
true shepherd was recognized as such, 
both by the porter who stood at the 
gate and by the sheep themselves. If 
any further significancy is intended, it 
would seem that this porter is put by 
way of contrast with the scribes and 



and the sheep hear his voice : and 
he calleth his own sheep by name, 
and leadeth them out. 



Pharisees, who although acting in the 
capacity of religious guides and teach- 
ers, showed that they belonged not to 
the family of the true shepherd, by 
their refusal to open the door for him 
and the sheep, which he was bringing 
back from their wanderings from the 
true fold. The sheep hear his voice. 
So intimate and tender was the* rela- 
tionship between the shepherd and his 
flock, that they recognized and paid 
the strictest obedience to his voice. 
The word voice, does not refer here to 
spoken words, but to those various 
inarticulate sounds, by which domestic 
animals are incited or restrained in 
their movements. The phrase hear his 
voice, is equivalent to saying, that the 
sheep understand and acknowledge the 
shepherd's voice. The word hear, has 
this sense given it so frequently in the 
Scriptures, that there can be no danger 
of so mistaking its meaning, as to refer 
it to the mere external sense of hear- 
ing. He calleth, &c. In addition to 
the general indication of the shepherd's 
will to the flock, by whistling, halloo- 
ing, and other inarticulate sounds, he 
addresses them by name. Such was 
the practice of the ancient shepherds, 
the sheep readily understanding the 
names given to them respectively. 
Thomson (Land and Book, vol. i. p. 
302) says, " Some sheep always keep 
near the shepherd, and are his special 
favorites. Each of them has a name, 
to which it answers joyfully, and the 
kind shepherd is ever distributing to 
such, choice portions which he gathers 
for that purpose." His own sheep, i. c. 
so many of the flock as he had taken 
under his special charge ; or his own 
flock, in contradistinction from the 
flocks of other shepherds. The figure 
is founded upon the well-known fact, 
that upon extensive plains and com- 
mons, numerous flocks will be driven 
forth to pasture, each under the guid- 
ance and protection of its own shep- 



A. D. 



•] 



CHAPTER X. 



233 



4 And when he putteth forth 
his own sheep, lie goeth before 
them, and the sheep follow him ; 
for they know his voice. 

herd. In the application of the para- 
ble this feature has no special signifi- 
cancy, for in the spiritual pastures of 
divine grace, there is but one fold and 
one Shepherd (v. 16). Zeadeth them 
out, i. e. conducts them forth from the 
fold. We have here the third charac- 
teristic of the true shepherd. He not 
only enters the fold by the door, and 
calls the sheep with his well-known 
and familiar voice, but he is careful to 
lead them forth to good pasturage, and 
thus not only protects them from vio- 
lence, and encourages them with his 
voice, but sees to it that they have sea- 
sonable and nutritious food. 

4. A fourth characteristic of the true 
shepherd is here given, in his preceding 
the sheep on their way to the pasture, 
and their alacrity in following him, 
which would not be the case, were he 
a strange or false shepherd. Putteth 
forth from the fold. Turns out, as 
Webster and Wilkinson well render it. 
He goeth before them to conduct them 
to the place of pasturage. So well ac- 
customed and obedient to the voice, 
did the sheep become by long and in- 
timate acquaintance Avith the shepherd, 
that they followed him, as dogs follow 
their master. The practice however 
varied, for in Homer (Iliad, 18 : 525) 
we find that the flocks or herds pre- 
ceded the shepherd or herdsman. Dr. 
Thomson (Land and Book, vol. i. p. 
301) says that our Lord's assertion here 
is true to the letter. "The sheep are 
so tame and so trained that they fol- 
low their keeper with the utmost do- 
cility. He leads them forth from the 
fold, or from their houses in the vil- 
lages, just where he pleases. The shep- 
herd calls sharply from time to time to 
remind them of his presence. They 
know his voice, and follow on ; but, if 
a stranger call, they stop short, lift up 
their heads in alarm, and if it is re- 
peated, they turn and flee, because they 
know not the voice of a stranger. This 



5 And a stranger will they not 
follow, but will flee from him; 
for they know not the voice of 
strangers. 



is not the fanciful costume of a parable ; 
it is the simple fact." For they knoiv, 
&c. This is introduced to show why 
the sheep are so ready to follow the 
true shepherd. As he precedes his 
flock he gives forth well-known and pe- 
culiar sounds, which the sheep hearing 
follow with confidence because habitu- 
ated to his voice. A stranger (who 
knows not this peculiar sound, and who 
cannot therefore imitate it exactly) will 
they not follow. He would frighten 
them into an opposite direction, instead 
of inducing them to follow him. The 
power of animals to distinguish be- 
tween familiar and strange voices, is 
within the knowledge of all. This 
would be more definitely marked in the 
case of animals so timid as sheep. The 
expression stranger, refers here to the 
same intruder, denominated in v. 1 as 
a thief and robber, but under a name 
corresponding to the idea of one, who 
should approach the flock while being- 
led forth to pasture, with the design of 
turning it off into places, devious, dan- 
gerous, and barren of pasturage. Such 
impostors and deceivers have in every 
age of the church sought to lead God's 
people astray from the truth. In view 
of this our Lord uses the plural form 
strangers, although as Stier very prop- 
erly remarks, the singular term the 
voice, combines them all in unity of pur- 
pose and result. 

6. So dull of understanding were his 
hearers, that they did not perceive 
the point or application of this illustra- 
tion of our Lord. Their excessive pride 
and self-esteem would naturally render 
the Pharisees who were present, insen- 
sible to the general drift of the parable 
and its application to them. The word 
rendered parable, is not the Greek word 
which the other Evangelists employ to 
designate this figure of speech. It is 
one significant of a kind of parabolic 
allegory, as Alford terms it, and corre- 
sponds to our word illustration. In this 



234 



JOHN. 



[A. D. S3. 



6 This parable spake Jesus 
unto them ; but they understood 
not what things they were which 
he spake unto them. 



ploy the word parable. See Matt. 24: 
32 ; Mark 13 : 28 ; Luke 4 : 23 ; 6 : 39. . 
Webster and Wilkinson refer to Matt. 
24 : 43-45 ; Luke 15 : 4; 17 : 7-9, as 
furnishing illustrations much like the 
one here found in John. Understood 
not what things they were, &c. They 
were ignorant of the meaning and ap- 
plication of the illustration which he 
had made use of. 

7. Tlien or therefore, i. e. in conse- 
quence of this dulness of apprehension. 
Again signifies here not only the sec- 
ond time, but a repetition of the gen- 
eral sense of the parable in vs. 1-5, 
which they did not understand. I am 
the door. The apparent confusion of 
imagery employed in this great utter- 
ance of our Lord, and the preceding 
similitude in which he represents him- 
self as the true shepherd, known to be 
such by his entering in at the door, has 
caused much perplexity in the minds of 
some, as to the true mode of interpret- 
ing these two divisions of the discourse. 
Some maintain that the similitude con- 
tained in vs. 1-5, in which Christ likens 
himself to a shepherd, is brought to 
a full and perfect close at v. 5 ; and that 
in vs. 7-10, he introduces himself in 
the new relation of the door of the 
sheep. Stier in opposition to this view, 
says that the assertion, that a new simil- 
itude without any connection with the 
former is now to be expounded, plainly 
contradicts the I am, of vs. 7, 9, 11, 14. 
This commentator remarks that in vs. 
1-5, our Lord speaks preparatorily, con- 
cerning human shepherds generally, 
anticipating and paving the way for 
what follows. He then in v. 7 speaks 
clearly of himself in his I am the door, 
and again v. 11, / am the good Shep- 
herd ; thus showing that he is both the 
door and the shepherd of all shepherds 
and sheep alike. But unfortunately for 
this exposition, vs. 1-5, so far from 
being preparatory to the subsequent 



7 Then said Jesus unto them 
again, Verily, verily, I say unto 
you, I am the door of the sheep. 



discourse in vs. 7-16, evidently contain 
a complete enunciation of truth in the 
form of an illustration or comparison, 
which the people (v. 6) might have 
been expected to understand, but 
which it is avowed they understood not. 
There would have been nothing strange 
in this want of comprehension, and 
which is so particularly referred to by 
the Evangelist, if vs. 1-5 were only the 
introduction to the discourse. But all 
this difficulty disappears, if we regard 
the subsequent discourse in vs. 7-16, 
as an explanation and enlargement of 
the general idea contained in vs. 1-5, 
and the point of which the people did 
not perceive. Then we shall be under no 
necessity with Stier, of supposing that 
vs. 1-5 were only spoken " concerning 
human shepherds generally," and that 
the application is to be sought in the 
verses following. Human shepherds 
or guides of God's people, are not re- 
ferred to in the opening verses, except 
as it relates to the false shepherd de- 
clared to be a thief and a robber ; but 
Christ, under the similitude of a kind 
and faithful earthly shepherd, is the 
principal and only personage intended 
to be designated. Had the people un- 
derstood this parabolical representa- 
tion, perhaps nothing further would 
have been said. But perceiving their 
ignorance of the import of his words, 
in his boundless forbearance and love, 
he proceeds to explain and expand 
them, and thus gives utterance to the 
glorious truth that He is both the Door 
and the Good Shepherd, to all the 
sheep which enter and find their 
home in the true fold of his grace. 
Here then is a beautiful and well-con- 
nected train of thought. It is as when 
he pronounced the parable of the sower 
(Matt. 13 : 3-8), and appended to it the 
explanation (vs. 18-23). Yerses 1-5 
then contain the parable : vs. 7-16, the 
expanded explanation. 

/ am the door — / am the good shep- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER X. 



235 



8 All that ever came before 



herd (v. 11). There is no difficulty in 
this twofold relation of Jesus to his 
people, as the door, and the shepherd 
who enters with his sheep through the 
door. As the Revealer of the ways of 
God to men, and as the great Prophet 
and Teacher, who is to guide his people 
into all truth, and lead them in the 
paths of righteousness, he is the Good 
Shepherd. But as one who by his 
death has opened a new and living way 
into the holiest (Heb. 10 : 19, 20), he 
is both the door and the way (see 14 : 
6). These titles, together with others 
whicli he bears, such as the vine (15 : 
1), bread of life (6 : 48), the truth and 
life (14: G), the morning star (Rev. 22 : 
10), express the various relations which 
he sustains to his people, and indicate 
that here he is by no means a door, in 
the very same respect in which he is 
the bread of life, the vine, or the good 
shepherd. In the explanation of his 
similitude in vs. 1-5, he might have de- 
clared himself at once to have been the 
one represented by the true shepherd, 
and ended his explanation with this 
simple annunciation. But instead of 
this, he goes on to make a further rev- 
elation of himself as the door of the 
sheep, preparatory to his great declara- 
tion in v. 11, that he is the good shep- 
herd, and of course the one referred to 
in the opening verses (2-5). It seemed 
to him necessary, before he revealed 
himself to be the Good Shepherd, to 
show his hearers what was the true 
door of the fold, through which the 
true shepherd (vs. 2-5) conducted the 
flock. This explains therefore what 
was meant in the similitude by the 
door. The reason for this order in our 
Lord's explanation of the parable, is 
seen in v. 8, where we find placed in 
the strongest contrast with him as the 
door — a title of the highest import, and 
involving the most essential dignity of 
office and person — the vile impostors, 
the thieves and robbers who came be- 
fore him, but whose voice the sheep 
did not hear. This is confirmed by the 
emphatic repetition of the words / am 



me are thieves and robbers : but 
the sheep did not hear them. 

the door, in v. 9, and the striking con- 
trast which again follows immediately 
(v. 10), in the thief whose only object 
was to steal, kill, and destroy. This re- 
peated antithesis between our Lord and 
those who preceded him, shows how 
important he deemed it, that this dis- 
similarity should be strongly impressed 
upon the people who were listening to 
the discourse. If their mind was fully 
possessed of this great idea that he was 
the door of the sheep, the declaration 
that ho was the good shepherd (v. 11) 
would be almost anticipated, so natu- 
ral, logical, and clear was the train of 
thought. That Stier should have over- 
looked this beautiful and impressive 
connection, seems strange in so judicious 
and clear-sighted an expositor as he. 

8. All that ever came before me. 
Here again commentators have been 
much at loss, as to what persons are 
referred to. That reference is had to 
false teachers there can be no doubt. 
But were all who came before Christ 
false teachers ? In order to avoid a view 
so unwarrantable, and which nobody 
can suppose the passage to teach, 01- 
shausen takes the words came before me, 
in the sense of working without me. 
But this is too forced an interpretation. 
So also are the various translations cited 
by Alford, passing by me as the door ; 
instead of me ; passing before me ; be- 
fore taking the trouble to findme,the door. 
Bengel and Bloomfield refer it to the 
time immediately preceding the advent 
of Christ, when the land was thronged 
with false teachers including the Phari- 
sees themselves. But the tense will 
not admit of this. Doddridge, I think, 
has hit the true interpretation: "All 
that ever came before me assuming 
the Messiah's character, or setting up 
for a despotic authority in the church, 
and teaching other methods of salvation 
than by me, are thieves and robbers." 
It is evident that by a natural ellipsis, 
and one easily supplied, the persons 
here referred to are those who made 
pretensions either to the Messianic 
office, or to such a high position as re- 



236 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



9 a I am the door : by me if 
any man enter in, he shall be 

«Ch. 14:G;Ep. 2:18. 

ligious teachers, that they assumed to 
be the only depositaries of the way of 
life to the people. The sentiment 
would then be : ' all who came before 
me [making pretensions to be the door 
of the sheep] are thieves and robbers. 
The contrast drawn by our Lord 
in his previous discourses, between his 
doctrine and that of the Pharisees, 
between his own origin from above, 
and their paternity from beneath (8 : 
42-44), would of itself sufficiently indi- 
cate the persons whom he meant to des- 
ignate by the expression, all tvho came 
before me. The words themselves also 
in their connection could not be mis- 
understood. Christ had just declared 
himself to be the door of the sheep. 
The assertion, as has been above stated 
(see N. on v. 7), is strongly antithetic 
to this, and points to a far different 
class of persons, making pretensions of 
love for the flock, but being in reality 
thieves and robbers. But what re- 
moves all danger of misapprehension is 
that in v. 1, the false shepherds are 
designated as thieves and robbers — the 
very same terms as are here em- 
ployed to show the false assumptions 
and rapacious character of those who 
had come before him. This shows 
that the same class of persons are re- 
ferred to, and renders it impossible 
that any of his hearers would be so 
stupid as to suppose that he intended 
to include in the words, " all that ever 
came before me," such persons as Mo- 
ses, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, and other 
Old Testament prophets. Are thieves. 
Not were thieves ; " their essential na- 
ture," as Alford remarks, "belonging 
to and being of the evil one is set 
forth, and the inclusion of these 
present Pharisees in their ranks." 
But the sheep did not hear them. They 
feigned the voice of the true shepherd, 
but could not thereby deceive the well 
practised ear of the sheep. A general 
fact is here stated, the power to de- 
ceive, at least temporarily in some in- 
stances, not being denied. But the 



saved, and shall go in and out, 
and find pasture. 

10 The thief cometh not, but 

true sheep can never be long deceived 
by these false shepherds, and will in 
some way soon detect the imposition. 

9. I am the door is an emphatic repe- 
tition, v. 8 being a sort of parenthesis, 
anticipating the strong contrast which 
is brought out more fully in v. 10. By 
me ; literally, through me as a door. 
"There is no door between the soul and 
Christ, which must be passed through. 
Salvation will be the consequence of ad- 
mission into the fold by Christ himself." 
Webster and Wilkinson. If any man 
enter in to the spiritual fold. This idea 
is illustrated and expanded by the dec- 
laration which our Lord afterwards 
made (14:6), that he was the way, the 
idea there being however, a way of ac- 
cess to the Father ; here, a door open- 
ing to a fold of salvation from all peril 
and harm. That this promise includes 
not only the under shepherds, but the 
sheep of the flock, is evident from the 
closing words of the verse, shall go in 
andout and find pasture, where reference 
is had, as in v. 4, to the provident care 
with which the true shepherd provides 
for the wants of the flock committed 
to his charge, by carefully folding them 
each night, and leading them out in 
the morning to pasturage. He shall 
be saved from all the dangers which be- 
set him, while out of the fold of Christ ; 
or, to drop the metaphor and express 
the sentiment in plain language, he 
shall be saved from sin and its dreadful 
consequence which is eternal death. 
Find pasture. Under the conduct of 
so faithful and provident a shepherd, 
the flock will never be in want of good 
pasturage. See Ps. xxiii. 2. Bengel 
says that this clause is to be taken with 
both the preceding verbs, the idea be- 
ing that he shall find pasture, whether 
he enters or goes forth from the fold. 
But this destroys the verisimilitude of 
the passage, as no pasturage is ever 
furnished within the fold. The bless- 
ings here promised are twofold, perfect 
safety — denoted by the words shall go 
in and out — and abundance of pastur- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER X. 



237 



for to steal, and to kill, and to 
destroy : I am come that they 
might have life, and that they 
might have it more abundantly. 



age. These embrace every thing essen- 
tial to the comfort and welfare of the 
flock. 

10. Contrasted with this picture of 
safety and abundance, is the condition 
of a flock exposed to the entrance of 
thieves and robbers. Cometh not (to 
the fold or to the flock while at pastur- 
age), but (i. c. except) for to steal, &c. 
Here is a gradation of evil. The 
primary purpose of the thief is to steal, 
but in order to gratify his malevolence, 
by doing as much mischief as possible 
to the flock into which he has effected 
an entrance, he kills and destroys the 
sheep. No difference of meaning is 
to be sought in these verbs, the latter 
being added to give emphasis to the 
wanton destruction of the flock. Stier 
says that the destroying strengthens the 
killing, as it discloses the wolfish mind 
of the thief, who finds his sole pleasure 
in killing. There is no doubt that be- 
neath this expression lies a reference 
to the wantonness, with which the wolf 
rends the sheep, even after his appetite 
is sated. Bengel refers the latter verb 
to the destruction of the pasturage ; 
but this sense the verb will hardly bear, 
as it is usually applied to the taking 
away of life, in the sense of to utterly 
destroy. The singular thief, is here 
used generically of all false teachers 
and impostors. It takes the article to 
indicate this, and not simply to refer 
it to the thief spoken of in v. 1. I am 
come, &c. A far different purpose is 
here denoted, than that for which the 
thief approached the flock. Tn its high- 
est sense, / am come relates to the ad- 
vent of Christ into this world ; but by the 
force of the antithesis, it has reference 
here to his approach to the fold to impart 
life, in contradistinction to the slaugh- 
ter made by the thief. Might luwe life 
is here opposed to the destruction of 
the flock, which was the purpose for 
which the thief entered the fold. The 
connective and, has an intensive sense, 



11 6 Iam the good shepherd: 
the good shepherd giveth his life 
for the sheep. 

b Is. 40 : 11 ; Ez. 34 : 12, 23 ; & 37: 24 ; He. 13 : 
20; 1 Pe. 2:25; & 5:4. 

and even that they might have, &c. 
There is in more abundantly, a grada- 
tion of good, corresponding to the 
gradation of evil contained in the 
words to kill and to destroy. The repe- 
tition of the verb might have, imparts 
to the clause great emphasis. The life 
referred to is spiritual, and this all true 
believers, designated in the language 
of the parable, sheep, were to possess 
and enjoy in all its fulness and per- 
petuity. 

11. The necessity of guarding the 
flock from thieves and robbers, implied 
in the preceding verse, and especially 
hinted at in the declaration that he had 
come to impart life, introduces a new 
relation which our Lord bears to the 
flock, namely, that of a Shepherd. 
Here commences the full and direct ex- 
planation of verses 1-5. It was unne- 
cessary for our Lord to declare in ex- 
press terms that the Jewish priests and 
scribes were represented in v. 1, by 
the thieves and robbers who climbed 
into the fold by another way than the 
door. The contrast was so clear and 
pointed, that the very first annuncia- 
tion of himself as the Good Shepherd, 
must have marked them out as the 
false and wicked shepherds of the par- 
able. Had our Lord expressly desig- 
nated them in this relation, it would 
have exposed him to the charge of 
speaking evil against those in official 
authority. The good shepherd giveth 
his life, &c. The form of the original 
is very definite and emphatic: the shep- 
herd (viz.) the good, i. e. he who alone 
can claim this appellation. This shows 
that it is not generically put here for 
all good shepherds, as Winer affirms, 
but for Jesus the Shepherd and Bishop 
of our souls (1 Pet. 2 : 25), to whom 
alone in the highest sense this epithet 
belongs (see Eom. 5 : 6-8). In a more 
subordinate sense, however, under- 
shepherds who share in his love and 
imbibe his heavenly spirit, may be and 



238 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



12 But he that is a hireling, 
and not the shepherd, whose own 
the sheep are not, seeth the wolf 



c Zee. 11 : 16, 17. 



are willing to lay down their lives for 
the sheep intrusted to their care. The 
imagery is taken, of course, from the 
readiness with which a shepherd will 
give his life in defence of his flock, 
when attacked by wild beasts (see 1 
Sam. 17 : 34-36), or by marauding 
bands of thieves and robbers. Dr. 
Thomson (Land and Book, vol. i, p. 
302) says, " Many adventures with wild 
beasts occur, not unlike those recount- 
ed by David, for though there are now 
no lions here, there are wolves in abun- 
dance ; and leopards and panthers, ex- 
ceeding fierce, prowl about these wild 
wadies. They not unfrequently attack 
the flock in the presence of the shep- 
herd, and he must be ready to do 
battle at a moment's warning. I have 
listened with intense interest to their 
graphic description of downright and 
desperate fights with these savage 
beasts. And when the thief and rob- 
ber come (and come they do), the faith- 
ful shepherd has often to put his life in 
his hand to defend his flock. I have 
known more than one case in which he 
had literally to lay it down in the 
contest. A poor faithful fellow, last 
spring, between Tiberias and Tabor, 
instead of fleeing, actually fought three 
Bedawin robbers, until he was hacked 
to pieces with their khanjars, and died 
among the sheep he was defending." 

12. But he that is a hireling, and 
looks only to his private and selfish 
ends. The word hireling, by the force 
of its antithesis with the good shepherd, 
is here employed of a faithless and mer- 
cenary servant, although the word in 
the original does not necessarily attach 
to itself this low meaning (see Mark 1 : 
20). The English word hireling, is 
generally employed in the bad sense 
which it has in this connection. It will 
be seen by a compaiison of the expo- 
sition (vs. 7-13), with the parable it- 
self (vs. 1-5), that our Lord neither 
explains away nor softens down the 



coming, and c leaveth the sheep, 
and fleeth ; and the wolf catclieth 
them, and scattereth the sheep. 



terms by which the false shepherd was 
designated. What was a stranger 
in v. 5, is here a hireling, with no love 
for the flock, and whose only motive is 
the wages for which he serves. Not the 
shepherd, i. e. not actuated by the love 
which characterizes the true shepherd. 
In ancient times, the owner of the 
flock was often its shepherd. In such 
cases, if the flock was so large that it 
was necessarily subdivided into small- 
er ones, persons were employed who 
acted as under shepherds. These very 
properly received their stipulated pay ; 
but those who were faithful, and with 
true shepherd feeling watched over the 
flock intrusted to them, would evince 
that they were actuated by higher mo- 
tives than those of mere gain. They, 
on the contrary, who were faithless to 
their trust, and ready on the approach 
of danger to desert the flock, would 
show that they were possessed of none 
of the characteristics of a good and 
faithful shepherd, and were only hire- 
lings, in the most unworthy sense of 
the term, whose (referring to the hire- 
ling) own the sheep were not, and there- 
fore devoid of all zeal and fidelity in 
protecting them from harm. The 
word own, refers to ownership, as op- 
posed to the mere charge of the flock 
as a hireling. The character of a mer- 
cenary hireling here held up to view, 
does not imply that every under shep- 
herd who served for wages was a mere 
hireling. Equally true is it that in the 
spiritual application of the passage, no 
inference can be drawn adverse to the 
payment of a fixed and definite salary, 
to those who as Christ's ministers are 
the spiritual overseers and guides of 
his flock. Sceth the wolf. This animal 
is selected for illustration, because it is 
the most destructive foe of the flock. 
See Matt. 7:15; Luke 10:3; Acts 20 : 
29. In the spiritual application of this 
term as here used, it must be referred 
to the great enemy of souls, the devil, 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER X. 



239 



13 The hireling fleeth, because 
he is a hireling, and careth not 
for the sheep. 

1-1 I am the good shepherd, 

and not to false teachers and guides, 
for these are here represented by the 
hireling. Leaveth the sheep, instead 
of yielding up his life, if necessary, in 
their defence, like the good shepherd. 
And fleeth. This is an advance on the 
preceding idea. He does not yield to 
a momentary terror, and then recover- 
ing his courage, return to the rescue 
of the flock and defend them to the 
last extremity ; but he flees away far 
from all danger, and leaves the sheep 
to be torn in pieces by the wolf. TJie 
wolf catcketh them, &c. Some are torn 
in pieces, others are scattered in differ- 
ent directions. The whole flock is 
destroyed or dispersed, as the result 
of the treacherous and cowardly 
desertion of them by the false shep- 
herd. 

13. The reason is here given why 
the hireling is so ready to flee from 
danger. It is hecausc he is a hireling, 
actuated by mercenary motives in the 
discharge of the duties which he owes 
to the flock. And careth not for the 
sheep stands in formal connection with 
the preceding clause, as a second rea- 
son why the hireling fleeth. But it is 
really the explanation of the preceding 
assertion, as though it had been writ- 
ten : ' he does this because as is natu- 
ral for such hirelings, he has no care or 
concern for the flock.' 

14, 15. These verses serve to ex- 
plain vs. 3-5, and thus refer the parable, 
beyond all doubt, to our Lord as the 
true shepherd of the flock. Between 
these verses and v. 13, there is a very 
marked antithesis. The good shepherd 
is opposed to the hireling; the words 
I know my sheep, to careth not for the 
sheep; Hay doivn my life for the sheep, 
to fleeth. The words am known of mine, 
refer to the same thing as know his 
voice in v. 4. This knowledge mutually 
subsisting between the good shepherd 
and his flock, is now explained to be 
the same in kind as that which subsists 
between the Father and Son. There 



and <*know my sheep, and am 
known of mine. 

d 2 Ti. 2 : 19. 

ought not to have been a period after 
this verse, but the passage should have 
read, " I know mine aud am known of 
mine, even as the Father knoweth," &c. 
Alford finds a difference in the knowl- 
edge here referred to, his knowledge 
of the sheep being entire, perfect, 
and all comprehensive, corresponding 
to the Father's knowledge of him ; their 
knowledge of him corresponding to his 
knowledge of the Father, intimate, di- 
rect, and personal. Dr. Burton, on the 
other hand, makes the correspondence 
to be : 'I know mine as I know my 
Father, and am known of mine as the 
Father knows me.' But in reference to 
both these views, I think the kind of 
knowledge, and not its exact amount 
and measurement, is referred to. There 
is between Christ and the believer a 
mutual knowledge founded upon love, 
such in kind as subsists between him 
and the Father, although, so far as the 
believer is concerned, infinitely less 
perfect. As to the difference which 
Alford finds in the knowledge which 
the Father has of the Son, compared 
with that which the Son has of the Fa- 
ther, it seems quite sufficient to remark 
that such an idea has no basis whatever 
in v. 15, where the most perfect equal- 
ity of knowledge is repi^esented as mu- 
tually existing in the Father and Son. 
It should awaken our deepest gratitude, 
that our fellowship and communion 
with Christ, is here likened to that 
which unites him in sympathy with the 
Father. And I lay down my life, &c. 
This is the consequence and illustration 
of his great love for the flock. His dis- 
ciples did not understand the declara- 
tion until after the scenes of the cruci- 
fixion, much less the people, in whose 
hearing this great utterance was made. 
The present tense I lay, denotes that 
Christ had already entered upon his 
work of suffering and death. The lan- 
guage in its connection implies that the 
destruction of the flock was threatened, 
and that the good and faithful shepherd 



240 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



15 e As the Father knoweth 
me, even so know I the Father : 
* and I lay down my life for the 

16 And 9 other sheep I have, 

e Mt. 11 : 27. 

sacrificed his own life in their defence. 
Here is clearly taught the doctrine of 
a vicarious atonement. Christ died to 
save us from death our great enemy (1 
Cor. 15:26). His death was our life, 
suffering as he did in our stead. In re- 
gard to the restriction here made, that 
he died for his sheep, and by implica- 
tion for none else, the idea evidently 
is, that the benefits of his death were 
actually conferred upon those only, who 
by faith in him availed themselves of 
the salvation which was provided for 
and offered to all. Hence in the actual 
results of his death, he laid down his 
life for believers only, all others being 
excluded from participation in the ben- 
efits of his death by their own act of 
unbelief. "The passage does not gain- 
say the great fact, that in another and 
prior sense, he died for all the straying 
sheep." Stier. 

16. Other sheep refers to the Gen- 
tiles, the words not of this fold, relating 
to the Jews, who had thus far been God's 
peculiar people and heritage. / have 
is the comprehensive present, showing 
that all who believe in Christ in 
all places and time, are embraced in 
his love, and belong to him as his cove- 
nanted inheritance (see 6 : 37). He 
neither neglects nor overlooks them in 
the rich promises, with which he en- 
courages his flock to confide in his 
protecting love. Of this fold, i. e. of 
the church as composed of Jewish 
believers. Tliese cdso I must bring. 
They were scattered abroad upon the 
face of the earth, wandering about in 
ignorance and sin; but in accordance 
with the purpose and will of his Father 
(see 6 : 39), whose love embraced the 
world, he was to bring all these into 
the fold. Not one was to be overlook- 
ed, in whatever portion of the world 
might have been his humble dwelling- 
place, or in whatever age he might have 



which are not of this fold : them 
also I must bring, and they shall 
hear my voice ; h and there shall 
be one fold, and one shepherd. 

/Ch. 15:13. g Is. 56:8. 
AEz. 37:22;Ep. 2: 14; 1 Te. 2 :25. 



lived from Christ's advent onward to 
the end of time. All w r ere to be gath- 
ered into the fold and made safe in 
His protecting care. TJiey shall hear 
my voice, as the sheep hear and obey 
the shepherd's voice. This clause is 
added to the previous one, to explain 
how our Lord was to bring these sheep 
into one common fold. It was not by 
a compulsory process, but in accord- 
ance with their own will and inclina- 
tion, as sheep follow the shepherd. 
Stier says that this is the great mis- 
sionary promise, with which his ser- 
vants may for ever confirm their confi- 
dence and console their hearts, when 
met by unbelief; even as the Lord him- 
self does, v. 26, in the words, 'they are 
not his sheep, even as he said.' And 
there shall be, &c. This denotes the result 
of the preceding collection of the sheep 
from different quarters ; there was to 
be but onefold and one shepherd. The 
word rendered/o/d, is here literallv/?oc&, 
reference being had to the union of Jews 
and Gentiles in the church of Christ. See 
Eph. 2 : 11-22, which Webster and Wil- 
kinson call a perfect commentary on this 
passage. But as one flock and one shep- 
herd, presuppose but one fold, there is 
no doubt that such is its meaning here. 
Let that interpretation, however, bo 
dismissed, as unworthy of the great 
and comprehensive meaning of the pas- 
sage, which would refer this one flock 
or fold, to any of the Christian sects 
of our day apart from the others. It 
embraces in its merciful promise and 
provisions of grace, the great family 
and household of the faith included in 
the covenant of the Father with his 
Son, whatever may be the minor diver- 
sities of belief and practice, which oc- 
casion their formation into separate 
religious communities and brother- 
hoods. There is in reality but one 
faith, one baptism, and one Saviour 



A.D. 33.] 



CHAPTER X. 



241 



17 Therefore doth my Father j love me, * because I lay down my 



i Is. 



S, 12; lie. 2:9. 



Jesus Christ. On earth, owing to the 
imperfections and diversities of intel- 
lectual views, there may be many sep- 
arate folds, but spiritually there is but 
one great and common fold, in which 
all the true sheep are under the super- 
intendence and watchful care of the 
Good Shepherd. In heaven, where all 
shall be gathered in, every line of de- 
marcation shall be erased, and believers 
shall form one great assemblage, realiz- 
ing the glorious declaration here made, 
and evincing in their perfect union and 
love the slight and transitory nature 
of those distinctions on earth, which, 
to the shame of Christianity, have so 
widely sundered the followers of Him 
who here announces himself the Shep- 
herd of all, and who prayed so earn- 
estly (17 : 21-23), that his people might 
all be one, as he and the Father were 
one. 

IT. The preceding verse closes the 
explanation and expansion of the para- 
ble contained in vs. 1-5. Our Lord 
now proceeds to speak openly and 
plainly of his official relation to the 
Father, in the laying down of his life 
for the sheep, referred to in v. 15, and 
here more fully disclosed and expand- 
ed. Therefore, refers forward to the 
clause because I lay down my life, as 
the reason for what is asserted in the 
first clause. It was his compassion for 
men, and his readiness to die in their 
behalf, which awakened in the bosom 
of the Father the deepest and most un- 
changing love for the Son. This refers 
of course to Jesus in his Messianic of- 
fice, and not to him as one of the Per- 
sons of the Godhead, for in that rela- 
tion, the most ineffable love has ever 
existed between the Father and the 
Son. Afford says that " in this won- 
derful verse lies the mystery of the 
love of the Father for the Son ; because 
the Son has condescended to the work 
of humiliation, and to earn the crown 
through the cross (see Phil. 2 : 8, 9)." 
i" lay down my life in voluntary self- 
sacrifice. The idea is fully and em- 
phatically evolved in this and the fol- 

VOL. III.— 11 



life, that I might take it again. 

lowing clauses, that our Lord in the 
work of human redemption did not act 
from any compulsion, but from his own 
voluntary choice and purpose. That I 
might take it again. Commentators 
are divided, as to whether this clause 
is causal, or merely declarative of an 
event or result. I prefer the former 
view. The taking up of his life (i. e. 
his resurrection from the dead), in- 
cludes all the future blessedness and 
glory resulting to him from his death. 
Were this great fact to be stricken out 
of the scheme of redemption, Christ's 
death would be Avithout any mean- 
ing or efficacy. This is clearly shown 
in Rom. 4 : 25, where it is expressly de- 
clared, that "he was raised again for 
our justification." See also John 14: 19. 
His death was a necessary antecedent 
to his entering upon a higher state of 
bliss and exaltation (see Heb. 12:2), 
and bringing his chosen ones also to a 
share in his heavenly inheritance. It 
was not the mere act of laying down 
his life, which endeared the Son to the 
Father, but the taking it up again, in a 
way so eminently conducive to the 
good of the redeemed, and promotive 
of the glory of God. As Stier well re- 
marks, without the purpose of taking 
up his life, his death would neither be 
lawful or possible. The resurrection of 
Jesus was deemed the most important 
of the facts of Christianity, and the 
proof and demonstration of all the rest 
(see 1 Cor. 15 : 14, 17) ; and as such, the 
apostles regarded themselves as special 
witnesses to its truth and reality. See 
Acts 1: 21, 22; 4:2, 33; 17:18. See 
also generally Rom. 1 : 4 ; 1 Pet. 1:3; 
3 : 21. Hence, to recur to the passage 
before us, our Lord declared that he 
laid down his life in order that he 
might take it again, and thus se- 
cure all those glorious results for the 
church which he had purchased with 
his own blood (Acts 20 : 28). 

18. No man taketh it from me, against 
my will and purpose. See 18:6; Matt. 
26 : 53. Of myself i. e. voluntarily. 
The fact that his death was voluntary, 



242 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



18 No man taketh it from me, 
but I lay it down of myself. I 
have power to lay it down, and I 
*have power to take it again. 
'This commandment have I re- 
ceived of my Father. 

19 m There was a division there- 
fore again among the Jews for 
these sayings. 

lc Ch 2" 19 
I Cb. 6 : 3S ; & 15: 10 ; Ac. 2 : 24, 32. 

as he here distinctly asserts, shows 
that it was necessary, or he would 
never have submitted himself to its in- 
fliction. It was this voluntariness of 
the offering which rendered it so ac- 
ceptable to the Father ; and therefore 
it stands connected with v. IV, as one 
of the things which calls forth the 
Father's love. This voluntary offering 
of Christ to death, is still further ex- 
pressed in what follows, in which he 
claims fully to himself inherent and res- 
ident power to lay down his life and re- 
sume it again. This makes his conde- 
scending love the more eminent, and 
endears him to the Father, as one who 
was obedient unto death (Phil. 2:8; 
Heb. 5:8); even when it was in his 
power at any stage of his humiliation 
and suffering, to have resumed the high 
station from which he voluntarily de- 
scended (Phil. 2 : 6-8). I have power (i. 
e. inherent, underived power) to lay it 
it down, &c. Webster and Wilkinson 
refer in exemplification and proof of 
this, to the actual fact as recorded in 
19 : 28-30. The repetition of the word 
power, in these clauses imparts great 
fulness and emphasis to the expression. 
The voluntary, spontaneous offering of 
himself to death, could not be express- 
ed in plainer or stronger terms. This 
commandment (or specific charge) have 
I received, &c. The sentiment is : ' this 
charge to suffer death have I received 
from my Father ; and therefore I lay 
down my life for the sheep, although 
in thus doing I act voluntarily.' So 
Webster and Wilkinson well say, " his 
death depended on the Father's will, 
and on his own free choice to do the 



20 And many of them said, 
" He hath a devil, and is mad ; 
why hear ye him ? 

21 Others said. These are not 
the words of him that hath a 
devil. ° Can a devil p open the 
eyes of the blind ? 

mCh. 7:43; & 9:16. 

n Ch. 7 : 20 ; &, S : 48, 52. 

o Ex. 4: 11; Ps. 94:9; & 146: 8. 

pCh.9: 6, 7, 32, 33. 

will of his Father." In these declara- 
tions which our Lord makes in regard 
to his approaching death, two great 
concurrent facts are revealed, one that 
he acts under a commission given him 
from the Father ; the other, that in the 
execution of this commission, his action 
is to the highest degree voluntary, in- 
asmuch as he has power in himself, did 
it so please him, to do otherwise. 

19, 20. The people are again di- 
vided (see 7 : 43 ; 9:16) in regard to 
him, some saying, he hath a devil (see 
N. on 7 : 20) ; others taking the oppo- 
site view. The words is mad, serve to 
explain the clause he hath a devil, and 
throws light upon the charge of the 
same kind made in 7 : 20. Why hear 
ye him? Why listen any longer to a 
lunatic like him ? 

21. Others, who took a more en- 
lightened and unprejudiced view of 
what he had said. These are not the 
words, &c. " No insane man could 
utter Avords so rational and full of 
heavenly import." Can a devil, &c. 
Can one in league with evil spirits, or 
who is insane, perform so great a mir- 
acle as to open the eyes of the blind? 
The argument is of the same nature as 
that employed by the blind man, in 
proof that Jesus was not a bad man, 
as the Pharisees declared him to be 
(see 9 : 30-33). This reference to the 
miracle shows that the discourse was 
connected with the healing of the 
blind man. See N. on v. 1. 

22-42. Jesus in Jerusalem at the 
feast op Dedication. He retires 
beyond Jordan. Jerusalem. Beiha- 
bara beyond Jordan. This discourse is so 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER X. 



243 



22 H And it was at Jerusalem 



evidently connected with the preced- 
ing, that it must be referred to the 
same occasion ; and hence Ave are fur- 
nished with a clae as to where Jesus 
passed his time, during the two months 
-which intervened between the feast of 
Tabernacles and the feast of Dedica- 
tion. The idea of some expositors, 
that after the feast of Tabernacles he 
departed to Galilee, and at the expira- 
tion of the time between the two feasts, 
returned again to Jerusalem — no no- 
tice whatever having been taken by 
John or the other Evangelists of such 
a departure and sojourn in Galilee — 
is almost too absurd to be serious- 
ly refuted. Stier, Tholuck, Olshausen, 
and Alford, agree with Bengel in the 
opinion, that Jesus remained from the 
feast of Tabernacles to the feast of Ded- 
ication in Jerusalem or its near neigh- 
borhood. It is strange that such ex- 
cellent and judicious expositors as 
Webster and Wilkinson, should dissent 
from this, and hold it as probable that 
our Lord returned from the feast of 
Tabernacles to Galilee, where occurred 
the history contained from Luke 10 : 
17, on as far as chap. 18. John, who 
so particularly refers to our Lord's visits 
to Jerusalem to attend the prescribed 
feasts, would surely have made at least 
some allusion to his return from Gal- 
ilee to this feast of Dedication, had 
he been absent in that region during 
the preceding two months. But, in- 
stead of this, he introduces our Lord 
walking in Solomon's porch, as 
though he had been at Jerusalem for 
some time, and this visit to the 
temple was one of his ordinary walks, 
to seek opportunity to impart instruc- 
tion to the people. Besides this, had 
he repaired to Galilee as above stated, 
we can hardly suppose that he would 
have returned to Jerusalem, to attend 
a feast so comparatively insignifi- 
cant as the feast of Dedication. The 
true chronological solution is that 
which supposes that Jesus fled from 
the premeditated violence of his ene- 
mies (8 : 59), and after a concealment 



the feast of the dedication, and 
it was winter. 



: of several weeks in Jerusalem or its 
| near vicinity — spent no doubt in pros- 
| ecuting the work of his ministry — he 
again showed himself publicly in the 
J city, and while passing through some 
one of the avenues leading to the tem- 
ple, found the blind man, whom he 
healed in the manner related in 9 : 1- 
7. This incident gave rise to the sub- 
sequent discourses, which may have 
been several days after the perform- 
ance of the miracle, some considerable 
interval of time being easily inteijected 
between vs. 3-4 and 35. Dr. Robinson, 
by a comparison of v. 26, comes to the 
same conclusion, that this discourse 
was pronounced to the same audience, 
at least in part, as the foregoing dis- 
course ; and hence that the healing of 
the blind man took place near the be- 
ginning of the festival of Dedication. 
Such I think must be the conclusion of 
every expositor, who gives the subject 
a considerate attention. 

22. Tlie feast of dedication ; literally, 
the festival of consecration of some- 
thing new. This sentence would be 
more properly translated: in those 
days, or at that time icas the feast of 
dedication at Jerusalem. " This fes- 
tival of dedication was instituted by 
Judas Maccabeus, to commemorate the 
purification of the temple, and the re- 
newal of the temple worship, after thir- 
teen years' profanation by Antiochus 
Epiphanes. It was held during eight 
days, commencing on the 25th day of 
the month Kislev, which began with 
the new moon of December. Josephus 
(Antiq. XII. 7, § 6, 1) calls it the festi- 
val of lights or lanterns, and speaks of 
it as a season of rejoicing. It was cel- 
ebrated by the Jews, not at Jerusalem 
alone, like the great festivals of the 
law ; but at home throughout the 
whole country, by the festive illumina- 
tion of their dwellings." Dr. Robin- 
son's Harmony. It teas winter, not 
stormy weather, as some translate it ; 
the clause being added to show when 
the feast took place ; or, as Alford sug- 
gests, to show why Jesus walked in 



244 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



23 And Jesus walked in the 
temple r in Solomon's porch. 

24 Then came the Jews round 



r Ac. S : 11 ; & 5 : 12. 



Solomon's porch, which furnished pro- 
tection from the cold. In favor of the 
former of these reasons, it may be 
said that John, writing as he did for 
those who were unacquainted with 
Jewish customs, often interjects expla- 
nations of this sort ; and nothing 
would be more natural than to give the 
season of the year, in which this feast, 
which is only here mentioned, occurred. 

23. Walked or was walking according 
to his usual custom. This is denoted in 
the original by the tense employed. He 
doubtless repaired to the temple each 
day, in order to impart instruction to 
those who resorted thither for daily 
worship. In Solomon's porch. This 
was a lofty and covered colonnade 
on the east, and rising, according to 
Josephus, some 400 cubits above the 
valley of the Kedron. But this was, 
doubtless, an exaggeration. Dr. Rob- 
inson by actual measurement made the 
height of the pinnacle, or middle poi*- 
tion of this colonnade, less than 310 
feet. It is said to have been called 
Solomon's porch, because tradition 
stated it to have been a relic of the 
former temple of Solomon. This is 
not improbable, for Dr. Robinson re- 
marks, that large portions of massive 
masonry, evidently belonging to the 
early ages of the temple, are still found 
on the S. W. of its ancient area, to- 
wards Mount Zion. 

24. Then came the Jeivs round about 
him ; literally, gathered around him in 
a circle. There was probably a con- 
certed design in this. His enemies 
seem to have determined on one more 
effort to entrap him in his conversa- 
tion, that they might have something 
wherewith to accuse him. Bengel says : 
" how grateful would their approach 
have been to the Saviour, had they 
done it in faith !" The term Jews here, as 
elsewhere in John, refers to his enemies, 



about him, and said unto him, 
How long dost thou make us to 
doubt ? If thou be the Christ, 
tell us plainly. 

25 Jesus answered them, I told 



many who believed in his mission, or 
were sincere inquirers after truth. 
The predominant power and influence 
on this occasion, however, were wholly 
with his enemies. Make us to doubt ; lit- 
erally, lift up our soul (in expectation), 
i. e. excite our minds and keep us in 
suspense. They here insinuate that 
our Lord had not put forth his claims 
to the Messiahship with ingenuous 
frankness, and virtually allege this as 
the reason for their unbelief in him. 
Tell us %)lainly ; literally, with boldness, 
frankness. Their words imply that he 
had no reason to fear a full and explicit 
avowal of his claims, in response to 
their demand. Thus under the guise 
of sincere and earnest inquirers after 
truth, they sought to ensnare him ; for 
when he afterwards declared himself to 
be the Messiah (Matt. 26 : 63-66 ; Mark 
14 : 61-64; Luke 22 : 66-71), they 
charged him with blasphemy, and ad- 
judged him to be worthy of death. 
The miracle of the healing of the blind 
man seems to have stirred them up to 
the most determined efforts to effect 
his death, just as the previous miracle 
of the infirm man at the pool of Be- 
th esda had excited their rage (see 5 : 
16 ; 7:1). The great and stupendous 
miracle related in the next chapter, so 
exasperated them, that it was almost 
immediately followed by a resolution, 
formed in solemn conclave, to put him 
to death (11:47-54). Thus we see 
that each succeeding miracle, although 
most benevolent in its nature, served 
only to excite his enemies to a more 
violent ebullition of rage. It was doubt- 
less, in part at least, to bring out this 
odious feature in their persecution of 
Jesus, that John relates with such par- 
ticularity these three miracles perform- 
ed at or near Jerusalem, and passes 
over so many others wrought in differ- 
ent parts of the land. 

25. / told you, &c. He had frequently 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER X. 



245 



you, and ye "believed not : * the 
works that I do in my Father's 
name, they bear witness of me. 

s Yet. 33 ; ch. 3 : 2 ; & 5 : 36. 



spoken of himself with sufficient plain- 
ness, to indicate beyond a doubt what 
he claimed himself to be. Alford re- 
fers to 5 : 19 ; 8 : 36, 56, 58, for unmis- 
takable descriptions of himself. To 
these citations may be added vs. 1, 9, 
11, 14, of the preceding chapter. And 
ye believed not. It is admissible in such 
cases to translate and, by the adversa- 
tive bid, although there is no positive 
necessity for it, inasmuch as the anti- 
thesis with the preceding clause lies in 
the negative. The works, &c. He ap- 
peals to his miracles in proof of his 
divine character and mission, the argu- 
ment from which, in the mouth even of 
a poor illiterate man afflicted with 
blindness from his birth, we have seen 
to have been irresistibly conclusive to 
every candid mind (see 9 : 30-32). His 
oft repeated declarations as to his 
office and mission, had been rejected 
by them as the words of one possessed 
of a devil (see 1 : 20 ; 8 : 40, 52 ; 
10 : 20). He had therefore no other 
recourse than to refer to his works, the 
evidence of which in his favor, could 
neither be impeached nor regarded 
as irrelevant or inconclusive. These 
works he had performed in his Father 's 
name, which showed that he was ap- 
proved of God (see 9:31-33). Our 
Lord always brings out the great truth 
that he was sent into the world by the 
Father (see N. on 1 : 33), and that he 
came not to do his own will but the 
will of Him that sent him (John 5 : 30). 
Even the miracles he wrought were not 
performed in his own, but in his Fa- 
ther's name. It was, however, only as 
Messiah, God-man, that this subordina- 
tion was predicated of him. By keep- 
ing in view this grand distinction be- 
tween his official character as Messiah, 
and his essential nature and attributes 
as the divine Logos, every such pas- 
sage as this will be readily understood, 
as referring to him in the subordinate 
relation of Redeemer and Mediator, 



26 But ' ye believe not, because 
ye are not of my sheep, as I said 
unto you. 

tCh. 8:47; Uo. 4:6. 

and not at all conflicting with those 
Scriptures which assert his supreme 
divinity. 

26. But ye believe not this over- 
whelming testimony. The conjunction 
is employed here which is most strongly 
adversative, and arrays their unbelief 
in striking contrast with the abundant 
proof furnished by his works as well as 
his word. The sentiment is, that their 
rejection of the evidence furnished by 
his miracles, showed very clearly that 
they would yield assent to nothing 
which he might say of himself. So 
rank and deep-seated was their unbe- 
lief, that it was proof against any and 
all evidence with which it might be 
sought to be overcome ; and hence 
every effort to convince them of his 
divine mission and character in the na- 
ture of the case would prove fruitless. 
Because ye are not of my sheep, i. e. 
belong not to the number of believers. 
They had not entered the fold through 
the only door, which was Christ him- 
self (see vs. 1, 9) ; but so far as the ex- 
ternal privileges of the Jewish church 
were concerned, and in which they, as 
a portion of God's covenanted people, 
shared, they were thieves and robbers, 
having entered some other way (see v. 
1). They were the natural descendants 
of Abraham, but they were not really 
and truly Abraham's children (see 8 : 
39, 44). As I said unto you, when I 
drew the character of those who were 
not of my sheep in such plain terms, 
that you could not mistake your posi- 
tion in relation to the Good Shepherd 
(see vs. 3, 4, 14). The difficulty which 
some find in the fact, that our Lord had 
in no recorded instance expressly told 
them that they belonged not to his fold, 
is imaginary ; for the reference in the 
words, as I said unto you, like that in 
I told you (v. 25), is to the substance of 
what he had said, rather than to any 
plain and open declaration. Some ex- 
positors find in 8 : 45, 46, the declara- 



246 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



27 u My sheep hear my voice, 
and I know them, and they follow 
me : 

28 And I give nnto them eter- 

u Yer. 4, 14. 

tion to which he refers ; but we need 
not go beyond the limits of the present 
chapter, to find, in the contrast which 
is implied in our Lord's parable (vs. 
1-5), and its explanation (vs. 7-18), 
the declaration, almost as plain as 
words could have made it, that these 
Pharisees in their stubborn rejection of 
him who was the Good Shepherd, be- 
longed not to the number of the true 
sheep. Some critics connect the words 
as I have told you, with the next verse. 
But this only transfers the difficulty to 
another quarter without removing it, 
for in no place can we find spoken the 
precise words of v. 27. 

27. My sheep ; literally, the sheep 
(that are) mine, the collocation of the 
words in the original referring in strong 
contrast to the preceding words, ye are 
not of my sheep (v. 26). Hear my voice 
(see v. 3). This was the criterion by 
which the true flock was to be distin- 
guished from that which was false and 
alien. By their rejection of his words 
(v. 25), the Jews showed clearly that 
they were not of his fold. Thus more 
and more clearly does our Lord draw 
the line of demarcation between his 
proud and persecuting enemies, and 
those who were included in the cove- 
nant of redemption (see v. 29), whom 
he here denominates his sheep. The 
verb in the original is singular, because 
the flock in its collective unity is refer- 
red to. The words they follow me, cor- 
respond to I know them, the implied 
sense being they know vie and follow me. 
The knowledge is mutual (see v. 14), 
and hence the one implies the existence 
of the other. The general sense is : ' I 
know and acknowledge them, and they 
yield ready obedience to all my com- 
mands.' The pronoun 7", in I know and 
I give (v. 28), is emphatic, and opposes 
in implied contrast our Lord the Good 
Shepherd, to those false shepherds 
referred to in the preceding parable 



nal life; and ''they shall never 
perish, neither shall any man 
pluck them out of my hand. 

ccCh. 6:37; & 17: 11, 12; &1S:9. 



(vs. 1-5) and its explanation (vs. 7-18), 
whose oversight of the flock was so 
faithless and baleful (see Ns. on 12, 13). 
28. And I give (or / also give) unto 
them eternal life. See Ns. on 3:15; 
4:36; 6 : 54, 68. This promise corre- 
sponds to the abundant measure of 
life and happiness promised in v. 11, 
and also to the declaration made in vs. 

11, 15, where the laying down of the 
shepherd's life for the sheep implies the 
protection and preservation of the life 
of the flock. This is still further indi- 
cated in his subsequent declaration 
(vs. 17, 18), that in the voluntary sur- 
render of his life for the flock, he was 
to take it again — a circumstance which 
would be shorn of its chiefest glory, if 
the sheep for whose safety and welfare 
he died, were all scattered and lost. 
These great utterances of Jesus are so 
interlaced and woven together, that 
each new announcement confirms and 
illustrates the truths already declared. 
Thus the increased blessedness of the 
promise expressed in the words eternal 
life, is but the interpretation of what 
was less definitely expressed in the 
phrase might have it (i. e. life) more 
abundantly (v. 10). They shall never 
perish. According to the usage of 
John, this expresses negatively the sen- 
timent of the preceding clause. Nei- 
ther shall any man, &c. The train of 
thought is climacteric. Neither — any 
man ; literally, not any one. The verb 
shall pluck, conforms to the preceding 
illustration, being the one employed in v. 

12, of the wolf seizing and bearing off 
the sheep kept by the hireling. Not so 
shall it be with those who are u«nder the 
watchful and faithful care of the good 
shepherd. No enemy by craft or open 
violence, shall be suffered to snatch one 
away from the fold, but all, even the 
weakest lambs of the flock, shall be 
kept in safety. Out of my hand, i. c. 
from under my power and protection. 



A. D. 



CHAPTER X. 



247 



•29 'My Father, s which gave 
them rne, is greater than all ; and 

vCh. 14:23. 
z Ch. 17 : 2, 6, &c. 

The hand as the symbol of power, is 
often put figuratively for the person 
himself. 

29. This verse furnishes the ground 
of assurance, that the Good Shepherd 
will preserve his flock from all peril 
and harm. They were all secured in 
the covenant of redemption to the Son, 
the Father having given them to him, 
and thereby standing pledged to their 
deliverance from every foe. My Fa- 
ther which gave them to me. The ob- 
ject of the verb is omitted, but there 
cannot be the least doubt of the cor- 
rectness of the ellipsis, as supplied in 
our English version. Webster and 
"Wilkinson remark, that the sentiment 
is all the more forcibly expressed from 
the absence of the pronoun, the atten- 
tion being thereby restricted to the ac- 
tion of the verbs. Is greater (in power) 
than all the enemies of the flock ; and 
hence, neither singly or combined, can 
they wrest one of the sheep from His 
hand. The argument is exceedingly 
simple and pertinent. Some have 
sought to maintain that the Son himself 
is included in the all here spoken of. 
But the connection evidently limits the 
comparison to the enemies of the sheep. 
Even however if the Son were included 
in the number of those who are inferior 
in power to the Father, it would be no 
proof whatever against his supreme 
divinity, inasmuch as the context re- 
fers beyond all question to the Son in 
his incarnate state. The whole argu- 
ment is based on the superiority of the 
Father, which secures to the Son the 
possession of all who in the compact of 
redemption had been promised to him 
by the Father. The doctrine of the 
saint's perseverance in holiness is here 
most expressly taught. If one of the 
elect should finally perish, it would not 
only falsify the declaration here made 
by Christ, but would be a violation of 
the compact between the Father and 
Son (see 6 : 3T), and contrary to the 
expressly declared will of the Father 



no man is able to pluck them out 
of my Father's hand. 

30 a I and my Father are one. 

a Ch. IT : 11, 22. 



(6 : 39, 40). Yet this great truth, which 
so illustrates the sovereign mercy of 
God through Jesus Christ, and which is 
the only sure foundation upon which the 
believer rests his hope of eternal life, 
must not be abused to justify any laxity 
of effort on his part to make his calling 
and election sure, by a life of prayer 
and holy living, such as becometh the 
disciples of Christ. 

30. Tholuck says that "this verse 
has been used since the Nicene Council, 
as the grand proof text for the meta- 
physical unity of essence between the 
Father and Son, though it was not so 
used previously." Some refer this uni- 
ty to one of purpose merely. But the 
context refers to power, as the attri- 
bute of the Father especially referred 
to. This shows that unity of power, 
rather than unity of purpose, is here 
predicated of the Father and Son. But 
a oneness of power — which with God 
is omnipotent power — involves the idea 
of a unity of being or essence, and 
shows that the Father and Son are es- 
sentially one. But even if a unity of 
will and purpose only is meant in the 
unity here spoken of, does not an abso- 
lute oneness in this respect presuppose 
essential unity ? In either case, whether 
unity of power or purpose be intended, 
the passage teaches most clearly an es- 
sential unity of the Father and Son. 
The manifest design of the declaration, 
is to prevent any misconception which 
might arise from the fact, that the 
sheep are spoken of as being in the 
hand of both the Father and the Son. 
The question might arise, how, at one 
and the same time, they could be in 
the hand of two distinct beings, each 
so powerful that none could pluck them 
from their hand. The answer, simple, 
concise, and unmistakable, is that these 
Persons are one and the same in essence; 
and that so united are they in their es- 
sential being, that whoever claims the 
protection and care of one, has an 
equal demand upon that of the other. 



248 



JOHK 



[A. D. 33. 



up 



31 Then b the Jews took 
stones again to stone him. 

o'l Jesus answered them, Many 



o Ch. 8 : 59. 



Hence there was nothing strange in the 
assertion,that the sheep were in his hand, 
and also in that of his Father. That 
this is the great argument of the pas- 
sage, seems too plain to be for a mo- 
ment questioned. To claim that a mere 
unity of will and purpose, aside from 
an essential unity of being, meets the 
requisitions of this declaration, when 
considered in relation to the context so 
clear and well-defined, is as absurd as 
to say that two persons may have dis- 
tinct and personal possession of a thing 
at one and the same time, merely be- 
cause there exists between them a uni- 
ty of will and purpose. That essential 
unity is here intended is clear, not only, 
as we have shown, from the scope of 
the passage, which requires something 
more than oneness of purpose, but also 
from the following context, and espe- 
cially v. 38, where the mutual indwelling 
of the Father and Son is expressly de- 
clared, in terms which admit of no oth- 
er interpretation, than as referring to 
the mysterious and ineffable union 
taught so clearly in the passage before 
us. The numeral one, is the Greek 
neuter, the idea of essence and not of 
personality being predominant. Had 
the masculine form been employed, it 
would have been 7" and my Father are 
one person, which would involve an un- 
truth and an absurdity. 

31. The infuriated rage to which 
they were excited by these words of 
Jesus, discloses the spirit with which 
they made the request in v. 24. As 
soon as he intimated in the slightest 
degree his claim to the Messianic dig- 
nity, they became so exasperated as to 
attempt to kill him upon the spot. Again 
refers to the previous attempt of the 
same sort narrated in 8 : 59. As Jesus 
did not seek to avoid their rage, as in 
the previous instance, it is probable 
that they did not evince such a desper- 
ate determination to kill him as at that 
time. Iliey took up ; literally, they 
bore in the hand. They held the stones 



good works have I showed you 
from my Father ; for which of 
those works do ye stone me ? 



in readiness to throw at him. Stiev 
thinks that they brought these stones 
with them, evincing a more deliberate 
intention to take his life, than when, 
on a previous occasion, they grasped 
stones which lay in the way, to cast at 
him. What it was which restrained 
them from consumating their act of 
violence, we know not. Perhaps they 
paused a moment, when they perceived 
that he was about to speak, and their 
attention being arrested by his words, 
they permitted him to proceed with his 
discourse, until being again lashed into 
fury by his closing words in v. 38, they 
sought to carry into immediate effect 
their bloody intentions, and that too in 
so determined a manner, that he found 
it necessary to quit the city and retire 
to the east of Jordan. 

32. Answered them. " The Evangel- 
ist beautifully introduces his words with 
answered them, as if the interjection of 
the stones was but a continuation of 
the colloquy and met with this gentle 
response." Stier. Many good works, 
&c. Our Lord keeps constantly before 
his enemies, as proof of his being the 
Son of God, his miracles and doctrines. 
Good ivorks refers to all the manifesta- 
tions by word and deed, which he had 
made of his Messiahship. He challenges 
them to point out one of these works, 
as furnishing any ground of justi- 
fication for their violent treatment of 
him. Have 1 showed (i. e. made known 
as the Revealer) from my Father, in 
whose name I act and whose com- 
mission I bear. Although he had de- 
clared in v. 30, his coequal power and 
dignity with the Father, yet now re- 
suming language befitting the depths of 
humiliation into which he had descend- 
ed, he speaks of receiving his works 
from his Father. But in this expres- 
sion of humble subordination to the 
Father, we see a striking manifestation 
of his calm boldness in repeating the 
words my Father, although at the haz- 
ard of awakening anew the deadly rage 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER X. 



249 



33 The Jews answered him, 
saying, For a good work we stone 
thee not ; hut for blasphemy ; 
and because that thou, being a 
man, c makest thyself God. 

of his enemies. Bo ye atone me ? i. e. 
seek ye to stone me ? 

33. For a good work, &c. Olshausen 
and Stier look upon this as an admission 
on the part of these Jews, that Jesus had 
performed many good and benevolent 
works. But this is not the necessary 
interpretation of the passage. It was 
probably spoken as a mere hypothesis : 
for a good icork (on the supposition that 
you have ever performed one) ice stone 
thee not. This shows why they em- 
ployed the singular in their repetition 
of his many good ivorks. It was in 
derogation of his claim to the per- 
formance of a single benevolent work. 
It will be recollected that their univer- 
sal practice was, either to deny that he 
had really performed a miracle, or to im- 
pute it to collusion with the evil spirits. 
The charge of blasphemy, which they 
here make against him, is a virtual de- 
nial that he was a true miracle-worker. 
But for blasphemy. This shows in 
what sense the Jews understood his 
declaration in v. 30. And because that 
thou, &c. This introduces the proof of 
their charge against him of blasphemy. 
The Greeks often construed a causal 
clause, as a coordinate one, to give it the 
more emphasis. Being a man. Had our 
Saviour been only a man, their charge 
would have been true. Their mistake 
lay in not discerning his superhuman 
character from his stupendous mira- 
cles and his own oft repeated and sol- 
emn declarations. Makesi thyself God. 
Jesus had in various ways declared his 
essential unity with the Father, and his 
underived and independent power (see 
v. 18). The Jews, either looking or 
pretending to look upon him as a fanat- 
ic, bear with him, until he asserts 
this intimate and essential relation to 
the Father, which they regard as the 
most shocking blasphemy. Some who 
deny the supreme divinity of our Lord, 
seek to evade the force of the dcclara- 
vol. HI.— -11* 



34 Jesus answered them, rf Is 
it not written in your law, I said, 
Ye are gods ? 



cCh. 5:13. 
d Ps. 82 : 6. 



tion in v. 30, by averring that the Jews 
did not really understand him as claim- 
ing an essential unity with the Father, 
but pretended to so understand his 
words, in order to excuse their pre- 
meditated act of violence. But in the 
first place, it cannot be denied that 
they affixed to his declaration its natu- 
ral and obvious sense. Indeed, as we 
have shown from the preceding con- 
text, they could have attached no other 
meaning to the declaration, than that 
his power to preserve the flock was 
equal to that of the Fathei*, on the 
ground that there was an essential 
unity of being and" attributes existing 
between him and the Father. In the 
second place, had they misunderstood 
the purport of his words, can any one 
suppose for a moment that our Lord 
would not have corrected their mistake, 
instead of proceeding, as he did, to show 
that it was no blasphemy for him to 
announce himself the Son of God? 
His whole reply, even to the very clos- 
ing declaration — which, if possible, was 
a still stronger affirmation of his su- 
preme divinity (see N. on v. 38) — is an 
admission that they rightly understood 
him as making himself equal with God. 
Had he not intended this in his decla- 
ration / and my Father are one, as an 
honest man, he should at once have 
disabused them of their mistake, and 
acknowledged the infinite distance that 
intervened between him and the great 
God. This disclaimer was no less im- 
perative on him, from the fact that the 
Jews put a false interpretation on his 
words for insidious purposes. He should 
not have permitted either a real or pre- 
tended charge of this nature to have 
gone forth uncontradicted, if he was any 
thing less than coequal and coessential 
with the Father. 

34. Without arguing directly the 
question of his divine nature, our 
Lord, by a sort of argument a fortiori 



250 

35 If he called them gods, 
unto whom the word of God 
came, and the Scripture cannot 
he hroken ; 

36 Say ye of him, f whom the 

e Eo. 13 : 1. 

/Ch. 6:27. 



JOHN. [A. D. 33. 

Father hath sanctified, and 9 sent 
into the world, Thou blasphem- 
est ; h because I said, I am l the 
Son of God ? 

gCh. 3:17; & 5:36, 37; & 8:62. 

h Ch. 5: 17, IS; ver. 80. 
* Lu. 1 : 33 ; ch. 9 : 35, 37. 



(see N. on Matt. 5 : 15), exonerates him- 
self from all ceDsure in the high claims 
which he had put forth. The train of 
thought is this: 'If magistrates and 
others in authority were called gods in 
the Scriptures, was he to be charged 
with blasphemy, who, bringing with 
him the most ample and satisfactory 
credentials, that he had been conse- 
crated and sent into the world as Mes- 
siah, declared himself to be the Son 
of God?' Is it not written in your 
law? The quotation is from Ps. 82 : 6 
(compare also Ex. 22 : 8, 9, 28). The 
word law, is employed here in the gen- 
eral sense of Old Testament Scriptures. 
Such is its use also in 12 : 34; 15 : 25. 
Ye are gods. This declaration is made 
of the judges, whom the Psalmist was 
exhorting to a more active and con- 
scientious discharge of their official 
duty. The application of this term, 
with which the judges were addressed, 
to the point in hand, is made by our 
Lord in the following verse. 

35. If he (i. e. the Psalmist) called 
them gods, &c. In order to understand 
the argument, we must consider the 
reference here made to the title be- 
stowed by the Psalmist upon the 
judges, as intended to furnish a justify- 
ing plea for the use of the title " Son 
of God," which he had claimed for 
himself. But the reference has still 
deeper soundings, as we shall see in 
the sequel. To whom the word of God 
came. This refers probably to their 
commission as judges, which being 
made in conformity with the requisi- 
tions of the Mosaic law, was ordained 
of God. This establishes the point of 
comparison, between them and Jesus 
whom the Father had consecrated to 
the work whereunto he had been sent. 
Some expositors refer the word of God, 
to the divine illumination of these 



judges by the word of revelation. The 
comparison would then lie between the 
judges as the recipients of God's word, 
and Jesus Christ the Revealer, or the 
Being in whom is the revelation of God 
Himself to man. Unless we consider 
the passage as combining both these 
senses — against which combination no 
valid reason can be advanced — I great- 
ly prefer the former exposition, refer- 
ring it to the divinely authorized com- 
mission which the judges bore, compared 
with the peculiar, unique, and infinitely 
glorious appointment of Jesus Christ 
to the Messianic office and dignity. 
And the Scripture, &c. The senti- 
ment of this parenthesis is, that the 
word of God contained in the Scrip- 
tures must stand as good authority, not 
to be gainsaid or disputed. This clause 
is designed therefore to add force to 
the argument, with which our Lord sup- 
ported his claim to the title of Son of 
God from the Scripture here quoted. 

36. Say ye of him? 'Can you with 
any propriety or show of truth say of 
him ? ' This constitutes the conclusion 
from the foregoing premises. Whom 
the Father hath sanctified, and thus 
honored far above the judges appointed 
by their fellow-men in accordance with 
the Mosaic statutes, and styled gods by 
the Psalmist. And sent into the world 
on his Messianic mission. Here again 
reference is had to the preexistent na- 
ture of Jesus Christ. He was with the 
Father, and came forth from him. 
This constituted a radical difference 
between these judges who were called 
gods in the old Testament, and Jesus 
who claimed to be the Son of God, in 
the New Testament. They were official- 
ly styled gods, as the representatives 
of God, and the dispensers of law and 
justice ; but He was really God, having 
been from eternity in a state of most 



A. D. 



CHAPTER X. 



251 



P.7 *If I do not the works of 
my Father, believe me not. 

38 But if I do, though ye be- 
lieve not me, J believe the works ; 

Jc Cb. 15 : 24. 



intimate fellowship with the Father, 
and sanctified and appointed of Him 
to an office, which embraced the su- 
preme dominion over all created be- 
ings (Eph. 1 : 20, 21), together with 
the final Judgeship of the quick and 
the dead — an office, which could be per- 
formed only by one who was himself 
supremely divine. Here the great ar- 
gument for his divinity comes out again 
in all its depth and grandeur. The 
fierce and threatening chai'ge of his 
enemies, that he had uttered blasphem- 
ous words, are made the occasion of an 
emphatic reiteration of his high claim 
to supreme divinity, and that too, by 
so pertinent an allusion to Scripture 
usage in regard to the title of gods be- 
stowed upon men, that the mouths of 
his enemies were completely stopped, 
and they had no recourse left but to 
effect his death by violent measures. 

87. Our Lord again appeals to his 
miracles in proof of his claims. He 
had now vindicated himself from the 
charge of blasphemy, and he calls upon 
them to examine the character of his 
works, and if they were such as to in- 
dicate that they were performed by di- 
vine agency, to yield to the evidence 
thereby furnished that he came from 
God. In all this, we see his persistent 
and repeated efforts to convince his 
enemies of their unjustifiable conduct 
in thus rejecting the testimony which 
he bore of himself, and which was 
so fully corroborated by his works. 
Works of my Father, i. e. the miracles 
he had wrought and the doctrines 
which he had taught ; especially the 
former, which were an appeal in favor ' 
of his divine mission addressed to the 
evidence of the senses. The phrase 
of my Father, denotes the idea of 
source and approbation. 

3S. Though ye believe not me, i. e. 
take not my word in regard to my 
character and mission, and stumble at 



that ye may know, and believe, 
" that the Father is in me, and I 
in him. 



ZCh.5:S6;&14:10. 11. 
mCh. 14:10, 11 ;& 17: 21. 



my lowly condition. Believe the works, 
i. c. confide in the testimony which 
they offer in proof of my Messiahship. 
The argument assumes, that the testi- 
mony of his works was higher and 
more convincing than that of his sim- 
ple assertion. Hence he exhorts them 
to believe the evidence furnished by 
his works, well knowing that this 
would be followed by the most implicit 
faith in all which he said. That ye 
may know, &c. This denotes the con- 
sequence of their belief in his works, 
and is corroborative proof that the 
Greek particle here employed may 
have the eventual sense, so that, as well 
as that of purpose, in order that. See 
X. on v. 2 ; Matt, 1 : 22. The words 
the Father is hi me, &c. are in the 
original highly condensed and emphat- 
ic : in me the Father, and I in him 
being the literal translation. This mu- 
tual indwelling and interpenetration, 
denotes the strictest equality and the 
most intimate and essential union, and 
clearly shows that in his great declara- 
tion in v. 30, of which this is the man- 
ifest reiteration, reference is had to 
an essential unity of being and attri- 
bute, and not to one of mere will or 
purpose. But how was this union and 
equality shown by his works, to which 
he directs them in proof of this great 
truth ? Evidently by their being 
shown to be the very same in nature 
as those wrought by the Father. In- 
deed they were the works of the Fa- 
ther wrought in and through the Son. 
He performed miracles by his own 
power, and yet not apart from the 
power of the Father. Hence, every 
miracle was an attestation of his own 
underived power, and also that of his 
Father working in and by him. The 
mystery of this truth is only solved by 
a reference to his complex nature of 
God and man, and his essential union 
with the Father. Hence, in v. 30, he 



252 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



39 "Therefore they sought 
again to take him ; but he escap- 
ed out of their hand, 

40 And went away again be- 
yond Jordan into the place 
"where John at first baptized; 
and there he abode. 

ii Ch. T : 30, 44 ; & S : 59. 
o Ch. 1 : 28. p Ch. 3 : 30. 



seeks to remove the apparent strange- 
ness of his declaration, that the sheep 
were in his own hand, out of which no 
one could pluck them, and also in his 
Father's hand, from which it was 
equally impossible to take them, by 
declaring in the simplest and most ex- 
plicit terms, that he and the Father 
were one. In like manner, he teaches 
here that an intelligent perception of 
the nature and divine power manifested 
in his works, would lead to the same 
solution of the mystery, namely, that 
the works proceeded from both him 
and the Father, by virtue of this mu- 
tual indwelling and essential unity. 

39. Although exceedingly infuriated 
against him, they make no farther at- 
tempts to stone him, but adopt the 
more deliberative determination to 
bring him to trial and condemnation. 
The word seek, must therefore be taken 
in the sense of endeavor, in the way of 
judicial process. He escaped, &c. It 
would appear from this that they 
sought at once to apprehend and drag 
him to trial ; but he found means to 
escape from their hands, his final hour 
not being yet come (7 : G). Some ex- 
positors interpret this of a miraculous 
escape, but it comports better with the 
habits of Jesus to refer it to the more 
ordinary means of self-preservation. 
We have no well-authenticated case, 
where our Lord or any of his apostles 
wrought a miracle to save their own 
life. For the preservation of that, they 
were thrown upon the providential 
care of God, like all the rest of man- 
kind. Out of their hand, has the sense 
of out of their power, with the idea of 
imminent danger. 

40. Went away, &c. The opposition 
of the Jews had now become so open 



41 And many resorted unto 
him, and said, John did no 
miracle: p but all things that 
John spake of this man were 
true. 

42 q And many believed on 
him there. 

q Ch. 8 : 30 ; & 11 : 45. 



and deadly, that it was no longer safe 
for him to remain in Judea, and he 
passed over to the east of Jordan. In- 
to the place, &c. This was Bethabara. 
See 1 : 28. Thus our Lord was brought 
back, after all his labors in Galilee and 
in Judea, to the place where he was 
baptized, and pointed out to the multi- 
tudes as the Lamb of God which was 
to take away the sin of the world. 
This accounts for the particular men- 
tion of the place, whither he now re- 
treated from the rage of the Jews. 
There he abode. He did not return 
again to Jerusalem, until the time of 
his public and triumphal entry into the 
city (Matt. 21 : 1-17 ; Mark 11:1-11; 
Luke 19 : 29-44), on the second day of 
the week of his passion. He returned 
however, to Bethany, at the summons 
of the sisters of Lazarus (11:3), after 
which he retired to Ephraim, until 
six days before his passion, when he 
again visited Bethany (11 : 54 ; 12 : 1). 
41. Resorted unto him, to listen to 
his instructions and to be healed of 
their infirmities. The presence of this 
latter class of persons is accounted for 
in the contrast, between his abundant 
miraculous deeds and the recorded 
fact that John did no miracle. The 
comparison made between Jesus and 
John, was doubtless suggested by 
the place, which reminded them of 
the ministry of the Baptist (see 
1 : 28). But all things, &c. They 
recall to mind the testimony which 
John bore to the character and office 
of Jesus (1 : 29-34), and fully acknowl- 
edge its truth. Some of these people 
may have followed him from Jerusalem, 
but the great portion were, doubtless, 
from the immediate vicinity of the 
place where he then was. 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XL 



253 



CHAPTER XL 
The raising of Lazarus. Bethany. 

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 

It has always been a matter of won- 
der, that this miracle, the most stupen- 
dous one wrought by our Lord during 
his ministry, and which. so thoroughly 
aroused and alarmed his enemies, that 
they rested not until they had com- 
passed his death — that such a miracle 
should have been passed over in the 
gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 
without receiving the slightest allusion 
whatever. To say that it was not their 
design to write each a complete his- 
tory of our Lord's official acts, is too 
obvious a fact to be disputed ; and yet 
when we remember that in the Synop- 
tic gospels, miracles of far less appar- 
ent moment were recorded with great 
particularity by all the writers, the 
question again recurs, why so great a 
miracle as the raising of Lazarus from 
the grave was left to be related by- 
John, the others passing it by in si- 
lence. TVe must also look for some 
reason deeper than that, which refers 
its omission by Matthew, Mark, and 
Luke, to the impossibility of bringing 
all his miracles within the limits of 
their historical record. If all his 
works could not be related without 
swelling to undue size the record of 
our Lord's public ministry, it would 
seem to have been both natural and 
proper that the selection should have 
embraced all his more stupendous mir- 
acles, certainly the one which of all 
others most clearly displayed his divine 
power, and was most intimately connect- 
ed with the settled determination of his 
enemies to effect his death. 

The writers of the gospels in making 
their selection from the acts and words 
of Jesus, would group together, as was 
natural, those miracles and discourses 
which best subserved the purpose for 
which they respectively wrote. The first 
three Evangelists seem to have felt, as 
they were approaching the last scenes 
of our Lord's ministry, that they had 
reported miracles sufficient to establish 
beyond a doubt the great fact that Je- 



sus was the Son of God. Hence from 
the time of our Lord's final departure 
from Galilee (John 1 : 10 ; Luke 9 : 51), 
to the time of his crucifixion, they re- 
late no miracle of his, except the heal- 
ing of the blind man near Jericho 
(Matt. 20 : 29-34 ; Mark 10 : 46-52 ; 
Luke 18:35-43), the withering away 
of the fig tree at the words of Jesus 
(Matt. 21 : 19, 20 ; Mark 11 : 13, 14, 
20), and the healing of Malchus' ear 
(Luke 22:50, 51). These miracles so 
fell in the way of their narrative, that 
they could not well avoid recording 
them. But all the other miracles 
wrought by our Lord in these last days 
of his ministry, and they were many 
(see 11 : 47), seem to have been wholly 
ignored by them. What was the rea- 
son of this ? The obvious answer is 
that (1) a limit was necessary to the 
number of miracles to be recorded, for 
the reason assigned by John (21 : 25); 
and (2) that in the .judgment of the 
Evangelists, enough had been related 
to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, 
that Jesus of Nazareth was sent of God, 
and was the true Messiah. 

But up to the time of the raising of 
Lazarus, John had recorded in the way 
of particular mention, but six miracles, 
and three of these for apparently no 
other reason, than to introduce to his 
readers the great spiritual discourses 
of our Lord which grew out of them. 
One of the other three, Christ's walking 
on the sea of Galilee, seems to have 
been recorded, rather as a matter of 
necessity to show how Jesus was on 
the following morning found by the 
people on the other side of the lake, 
than for any reason which grew out of 
the miracle itself (see Remarks on 6 : 
1-14). John then must be conceived 
to have made the relation of our Lord's 
miracles a less prominent object than 
did the other Evangelists, while he re- 
lated at far greater length his discourses 
and discussions with the Jews. He ap- 
pears to have selected just such 
miracles for special mention, as would 
serve to bring out the great truths per- 
taining to our Lord's divinity, and his 
spiritual relation to the believer, as the 
bread and water of life, and the great 



254 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



Yivifier v» T ho should raise him up at the 
last day, to a state of eternal blessed- 
ness in the presence of his Father. 
In 'accordance with this great feature 
of his gospel, he now goes on to record 
at length a miracle which was wrought 
in the latter period of Christ's ministry, 
and which served to show his divine 
power, and illustrate and confirm the 
declaration made of him in 1 : 1, better 
than any other miracle which he had 
performed. It was fit also after what 
had been said of the vivifying power of 
Jesus in 5 : 25-29 (on which see Note), 
that an example should be given, evinc- 
ing, as did this miracle, that in him 
this power resided in full degree and 
ready activity. 

There was then a reason why John 
entered into so full and particular a 
relation of this miracle, which had no 
place in the plan which governed the 
Synoptic Evangelists in the composition 
of their gospels. To this may be added 
its evident connection with our Lord's 
apprehension and death. The Jews 
had determined on this, having been 
excited thereto by the rage and malice 
engendered by our Lord's spiritual dis- 
courses and claim to a divine and pre- 
existent state. But the hostility re- 
ceived a new impulse from this miracle, 
which was so stupendous as to astound 
the nation, and wring from the rulers 
the despairing remark, that " the world 
had gone after him." See 12 : 17-19. 
This miracle then found a natural place 
in John's Gospel, and is by no means 
to be regarded as an episode for the 
mere purpose of entertaining his read- 
ers, or satisfying their curiosity in re- 
gard to the amazing display of power 
which it evinced. It comported fully 
with his general plan — which was to 
prove Christ's divinity, and show the ef- 
fect w T hich the declaration of this truth 
had upon the Jews — to record a miracle, 
which more than any one other illus- 
trated his great theme, and aroused the 
deadly opposition of the Jews against 
Jesus. 

But after all that may be said, in re- 
gard to the selection and arrangement 
of the materials of their Gospels, the 
whole subject in its highest and broad- 



est relation, must be referred to the 
Spirit under whose influence the Evan- 
gelists wrote, and who for wise reasons 
withheld the account of this stupen- 
dous miracle, until the time when it 
could be related, so as to best subserve 
the design which Infinite wisdom would 
accomplish, in having it so fully record- 
ed as it is in John's Gospel. 

There remains but a word to be said 
in regard to this narrative of the rais- 
ing of Lazarus, considered in the light 
of its structure and composition. That 
it is a story of exceedingly touching 
beauty and tenderness, no one who 
has a heart to sympathize with a be- 
reaved family like that of Bethany, 
will for a moment call in question. 
The somewhat formal opening, as 
though an affair of more than ordinary 
moment was to be related — the hope 
which the words pronounced in the 
hearing of the messenger (v. 4) must 
have inspired in the breast of those 
loving sisters, but which was followed 
by the deepest depondency at his seem- 
ing insensibility, if not forgetfulness of 
the whole affair, in tarrying so long 
in Perea — the devotion of his disciples 
in their prompt reply (v. 16) to his ex- 
pressed determination to go again into 
Judea, that if he would thus expose 
himself to peril from his enemies, they 
would go and die with him — his sub- 
lime and cheering declaration to the 
sisters of Lazarus as they came forth 
successively to meet him — his irrepres- 
sible tears of sympathy, as he aproach- 
ed the grave of his friend — the remov- 
al of the stone, the prayer of Jesus, 
and the sublime words, with which he 
awoke to life the tenant of the grave — 
are all narrated with the most artless 
simplicity, but with a gathering power 
and climax of interest, which no unin- 
spired story has ever approached, and 
which has scarcely a parallel elsewhere 
on the page of revelation. Thousands 
and thousands have read it with suffused 
eyes, and drawn comfort from the sym- 
pathy which Jesus evinced in the be- 
reavement of those who were dear to 
him — an earnest of his sympathy with 
the bereaved in every age, who have 
by their faith and love, entitled them- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XL 



255 



CHAPTER XI. 

"YTOW a certain man was sick, 
±\ named Lazarus, of Bethany, 
the town of " Mary and her sister 
Martha. 

2 b It was that Mary which 
anointed the Lord with oint- 

a Lu. 10 : 38, 39. 

selves to be numbered among his 
friends. Many things which might be 
said of this wonderful narrative, are re- 
served for the comments upon the par- 
ticular portions, as they pass before us 
in detail. 

1. Now. In the original but, to show 
why the privacy of our Lord was inter- 
rupted, and he deemed it proper to re- 
turn again into Judea. Was sick. 
This verb literally signifies to be weak, 
feeble, sickly. But we have classic au- 
thority, as well as the usage of the 
word in Acts 9 : 37 ; Phil. 2 : 26, 27, 
for its employment of persons in the 
last stage of disease. These sisters 
would have hardly sent off this message 
to Jesus, if their brother had not been 
dangerously ill ; and that this was so, 
is shown from the fact that he died 
soon after the messenger was des- 
patched to announce his sickness to Je- 
sus (see X. on v. 17). Of Bethany, i. e. 
a resident of Bethany. So we speak in 
common parlance of one's hailing/rom. 
a place. The town of Mary, <tc. It 
was the town where these sisters re- 
sided. Mary is placed first, not that 
she was the elder sister (see Luke 10 : 
38), but because she was the one whom 
Jesus specially loved and honored. The 
order of their ages is probably observed 
in v. 5. The general belief is, that 
Lazarus was the youngest of the three ; 
and Bengel refers to an ecclesiastical 
tradition, that he lived just so many 
years after the ascension of Jesus, as 
he had passed when he fell sick and 
died as here related. 

2. It was that Mary, kc. Literally, 
it was Mary, (the one) who anointed 
the Lord. This reference is made by 
way of anticipation, the incident not 



ment, and wiped his feet with her 
hair, whose brother Lazarus was 
sick. 

3 Therefore his sisters sent 
unto him, saying, Lord, behold, 
he whom thou lovest is sick. 

4 "When Jesus heard that, he 
said, This sickness is not unto 

b Mt. 26 : 7 ; Ma. 14 : 3: ch. 12 : 3. 



having yet taken place, nor having 
been recorded by John (see 12:3). 
It seems to have been referred to, in 
order to show why it was that Mary 
was awarded the honor of being named 
before her sister (see X. on v. 1). The 
form of expression the Lord, which in 
the Greek idiom has the force of our 
Lord (see X. on 4:1), shows that this 
pious act of Mary had already attained 
that general notoriety in the church, 
which our Lord had predicted of it 
(see Matt. 24 : 13 ; Mark 14 : 9). The 
reference made to it by John is in a 
way which shows that it was a well- 
know r n and familiar incident in the life 
of Jesus. 

3. Therefore in consequence of his 
alarming illness. lie whom thou lovest, 
&c. Our Lord had doubtless mani- 
fested a strong attachment to Lazarus, 
as well as to his sisters, and hence they 
remind Jesus of this circumstance, as 
an inducement for him to come to their 
aid. They appeal to his well-known 
affection for Lazarus, but with a deli- 
cate regard to the proprieties of the oc- 
casion, make no allusion to his well- 
known esteem for themselves. "What 
their modesty, however, forbade their 
uttering, the Evangelist fully records 
in v. 5. In connection with this point, 
it may be remarked, that the verb here 
employed to designate our Lord's love 
for Lazarus, is different from the one 
used in v. 5. That denotes regard and 
esteem ; this, affection, love. Thus 
carefully does the sacred writer guard 
the relations which Jesus sustained to 
this family, from any misconception or 
perversion which the enemies of truth 
might seek to employ to his prejudice. 

4. When Jesus heard that; more lit- 



256 



death, c but for the glory of God, 
that the Son of God might be 
glorified thereby. 



JOHN. [A. D. 33. 

5 Now Jesus loved Martha, 



erally, Jesus having heard the report of 
the messenger. Is not unto death, i. e. 
is not to issue in a death which shall 
be permanent, or death in the ordinary 
sense of the term. No inference can 
be drawn from this that Lazarus did 
not actually die, for the reality of his 
death is shown in vs. 14, 21, 32, 39, 
and indeed in the whole warp and woof 
of the narration. Stier says that this 
expression might be used in a certain 
sense, of the falling asleep of all whom 
the Lord loves, and who will awake 
only at the first resurrection. But this 
was a special utterance concerning the 
issue of Lazarus 1 sickness, which is 
fully explained in the grand event of 
the sequel. The words which Jesus 
here spoke, are regarded by many 
commentators, as the direct answer sent 
from him to Martha and Mary. But 
it seems more natural to consider the 
remark, as made by Jesus to the disci- 
ples who stood by, when the message 
from the sisters of Lazarus was re- 
ceived. "Whether any direct reply was 
sent back to them, we have no means 
of knowing. However this may have 
been, Ave cannot doubt that words of 
such deep and mysterious import, as 
that the sickness of Lazarus would be 
conducive to the glory of God, and of 
God's Son, were faithfully reported 
by the messenger to those who sent 
him. Before he returned, however, to 
Bethany, Lazarus lay in the embrace 
of death, and hence the words of Jesus 
rendered by this sad event still more 
enigmatical, constituted an eminent 
trial of their faith in Him, whose pres- 
ence, they afterward declared their as- 
surance, would have prevented their 
brother from dying. But for (i. e. for 
the sake of) the glory of God, &c. See 
10:3. The raising of Lazarus from the 
dead opened the eyes of the people to 
the truth of our Lord's claim to the 
Messiahship, more than any other mira- 
cle which he had performed. See v. 
45. Also 12:9, 10, 11, 17. But so 



and her sister, and Lazarus. 

c Ch. 9 : 3 ; ver. 40. 



intimate and essential was the union 
between him and the Father, that the 
glory of the one was that also of the 
other. Hence the glory of both Father 
and Son, is represented as resulting 
from this event of Lazarus' sickness. 
It will be noticed, however, that the 
expression is not the simple form for 
the glory of God and his Son; but 
the latter clause takes its more usual 
form, that the Son of God might be glo- 
rified, which in addition to the glory 
that should accrue to him from this 
stupendous miracle, seems to imply an 
additional reference to his own death, 
which, as has been remarked (Prelimi- 
nary Observations) was to be the effect 
in part at least, of this great miracle. 
It was through the agony of the cross 
and the darkness of the grave, that he 
was to reach that glorified state, which 
was to be the reward of his humiliation, 
toil, and suffering. Hence his death is 
often referred to as the means of his 
glorification. Compare 1 : 39 ; 12: 
16, 23. 

5. This verse is parenthetic, serving 
to show the depth of love and tender- 
ness, which actuated Jesus in the whole 
transaction. It connects with the not 
unto death of v. 4, serving as a reason 
why so gracious a word was used of 
Lazarus' sickness. It also belongs 
equally to what follows, in the sense of, 
' when he heard of this dangerous sick- 
ness of his friend, so afflictive also to 
the sisters whom he so much esteemed, 
he nevertheless abode two days still in 
the place where he was.' Indeed this 
verse serves as a key to the whole nar- 
rative, and shows from what a depth 
of tender love flowed those tears of 
grief and sympathy at the grave, which 
arrested the attention even of the Jews 
who stood by, and caused them to ex- 
claim, " Behold how he loved him." 

6. When; literally, when therefore, 
the verse being connected with v. 4. 
He abode (even) there, although there 
seemed* the most urgent need of haste, 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XI. 



257 



6 When lie had heard there- 
fore that he was sick, <; he abode 
two days still in the same place 
where he was. 

7 Then after that saith he to 
his disciples, Let us go into Judea 
again. 

8 His disciples say unto him, 

d Ch. 10 : 40. e Ch. 10 : 31. 

in order by his presence to relieve, or 
at least to comfort bis sick friend. It 
is probable (see X. on v. IT) that Laz- 
arus -was already deceased when Jesus 
first received the message, as he had 
been dead four days when our Lord 
reached Bethany (v. 39). This delay 
must not be attributed to his pressing 
official engagements, but to his pur- 
pose to make the miracle which he was 
about to perform the more stupendous 
and glorious, in the restoration of one 
to life, upon whose body the corruption 
of the grave had already commenced 
its loathsome work. Stier connects 
with this, as a leading motive in so long 
a delay, the great increase of joy which 
should be furnished thereby to the 
family in Bethany, at the unexpected 
restoration of their brother who had 
been so long dead. "His love witting- 
ly delays, that it may more gloriously 
console them after their sufferings." 
Tins is true, but as above remarked, a 
higher reason is to be found in the 
great design of the miracle to display 
the divine power of the Son of God, 
which rendered it fitting, that the most 
satisfactory evidence should be furnish- 
ed that Lazarus was really dead. There 
was doubtless a spiritual good also to 
be imparted to this beloved family, 
which required that they should be 
left for several days in the depths of 
affliction. Our Lord in his human 
sympathies yearned to revisit them at 
once, but as Lavater remarks, he pur- 
poses to help them in his own way, 
that is, as God. 

7, 8. Then; literally, thereupon, af- 
terwards. This is rendered more defi- 
nite by the words after this, i. e. when 
two days had elapsed. Let us go, &c. 



Master, "the Jews of late sought 
to stone thee ; and goest thou 
thither again ? 

9 Jesus answered, Are there 
not twelve hours in the day ? -' If 
any man walk in the day he 
stumbleth not, because he seeth 
the light of this world. 

/Ch. 9:4. 

This indefiniteuess of expression and 
apparent forgetfulness of the family at 
Bethany, led the disciples to infer, that 
his object in returning to Judea was to 
resume his labors as a" public teacher, 
and knowing that his life had been 
placed in great peril from the infuriated 
priests and rulers (see 10 : 39), they 
seek to dissuade him from his purpose. 
This they do by reminding him of his 
narrow escape from the malice of the 
Jews, when he was last at Jerusalem. 
Of late ; literally, now, just now. The 
danger to which he Avas exposed, when 
the Jews took up large stones to throw 
at him, was so vividly present to their 
mind, that they speak of it as a thing 
which had just happened. Sought to 
stone thee. See 8 : 59 ; 10 : 31. Goest 
thou thither again ? The question pre- 
supposed an infatuation of purpose, ut- 
terly at variance with every dictate of 
prudence and self-preservation. ' Go- 
est thou thither, where thou wilt be ex- 
posed to almost certain death ?' 

9. Are there not twelve hours, <fcc. 
See Xs. on 10 : 4, 5. Beference is had 
to the hours allotted to work. If the 
Jews reckoned the hours of labor be- 
tween the rising and setting sun, then 
the division would comprise twelve 
hours, longer or shorter according to 
the season of the year. That such was 
the division of the day, so far at least 
as pertained to civil and industrial pur- 
suits, in the light of this passage, we 
can hardly doubt for a moment. If so, 
then twelve hours might be denomi- 
nated a period each day, in which the 
laborer had no right, unless secured by 
previous stipulation, to intermit or 
cease from his labors. So our Lord 
virtually declares, that a definite time 



258 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



10 But 9 if a man walk in the 

firCh. 12:35. 

had been assigned to him by the Father, 
in which to fulfil his appointed mission. 
He had his allotted twelve hours' ser- 
vice, his appointed day of labor, during 
which time, he was not to be deterred 
by the fear of man from his great work. 
The additional idea is also implied in 
the passage, that the night which would 
bring his labors to a close, would not 
approach until its regular and appoint- 
ed time ; that he had a work to per- 
form, in the accomplishment of which 
he could not be hindered by his ene- 
mies, until the appointed hour ar- 
rived, when they would be permitted 
to triumph for a season. The same 
sentiment is expressed by a similar ref- 
erence to a strictly defined and allotted 
time, in Luke 13 : 32, on which see 
Note. Some find in the reply of our 
Lord to his disciples this idea: 'My 
twelve hours are nearly spent, and I 
must hasten my work in order that it 
may all be completed while the day 
lasts.' This view in itself is not erro- 
neous. Nor is it otherwise than perti- 
nent and true, in its reference to the 
zeal and ardor with which our Lord 
prosecuted the duties of his mission 
while on earth. But it is not the pre- 
cise idea of the present passage, which 
is simply this : 1 1 have full twelve 
hours to work, the allotted time of my 
earthly ministry, and I need fear no in- 
terruption until the full end has been 
reached.' Thus our Lord's reply meets 
the very point of the objection, urged 
by the disciples against his return to 
Judea, on the ground of the well-known 
deadly hostility of the Jewish priests and 
rulers against him. If a man walk (lit- 
erally, if any one walk about) in 
the day. As the man who enjoys 
the light of day, walks fearlessly about, 
so our Lord, under this figurative lan- 
guage, avers that he may visit Judea or 
any other place in safety during the 
prescribed time of his ministry. The 
implication is that he would experience 
the protecting care of his Father, while 
pursuing the path of duty, even though 
it led directly into the midst of his 



night, he stumbleth, because there 
is no light in him. 

most virulent enemies. Because he 
seeth, &c. This stands as the reason 
why the man could walk in such per- 
fect security. The expression light of 
the world, refers primarily to the sun ; 
but inasmuch as our Lord was the 
Light of the world in a spiritual sense, 
and had thus declared himself to be 
(see 8 : 12; 9 : 5), in the very words 
here employed (see also 12 : 35), he 
probably used this expression instead 
of the sun, to encourage his disciples 
with the promise of safety, while they 
were walking with Him, who was in the 
highest sense the Light of the world. 

10. In the night stands opposed here 
to in the day, and refers primarily to 
the natural night ; but like the prece- 
ding declaration, has also a deep spirit- 
ual significancy, that whoever walks 
not in the light of the Son of God will 
stumble and fall. This is not an in- 
stance of what is termed the double 
sense, but is an example of the conceal- 
ment or adumbration of a great spirit- 
ual truth, uuder the veil of language 
referring primarily to the natural day 
and night. The disciples were troubled 
for the safety of their Master, beset as 
he was by the most virulent foes. But 
he comforts and encourages them with 
the assurance, that while the day of his 
official labor lasts, he can walk in safe- 
ty. Closely allied to this was another 
important truth, that while walking 
with him, the Light of the ivorld, they 
need be under no apprehension of evil, 
for they would be secure in his protec- 
tion. Olshausen remarks that "in the 
former clause, if any man walk in the 
day, Jesus has respect rather to him- 
self ; in the latter, but if a man walk in 
the night, the reference is to his disci- 
ples. I would rather regard both 
clauses as constituting a general aphor- 
ism, applicable alike as a principle to 
Christ and his disciples, although the 
latter clause, in its reference to Jesus, 
was a supposition never to be realized 
as an actual fact. Because there is no 
light in him. This clause is shaped to 
meet the idea, that as in the absence of 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XL 



259 



11 These things said he : and 
after that he saith unto them, 
Our friend Lazarus h sleepeth ; 
but I go, that I may awake him 
out of sleep. 

12 Then said his disciples, 
Lord, if he sleep, he shall do 
well. 

h So De. SI : 16 ; Da. 12 : 2 ; Mt. 9 : 24 ; Ac. 7: 
CO; 1 Co. 15: IS, 51. 

the natural sun, the man has no light 
to guide his footsteps, so when the 
Light of the world is obscured from the 
soul, there is in it no light. The words 
in him (see Matt. G : 22), therefore, al- 
though referring primarily to the natu- 
ral light which is objective, are used 
nevertheless in the higher sense of the 
interpretation of spiritual light in the 
soul, by which the whole inner man is 
illumined with the rays of the Sun of 
Righteousness. These words of Jesus 
are designed, therefore, not only to en- 
courage the disciples, as above remark- 
ed, but to disclose a great truth, that 
spiritual light is as necessary' for the 
safety and comfort of the spiritual 
traveller, as the natural sun is to one 
who walks here upon the earth. 

11, 12. After that, i. e. after the 
preceding remarks. It is evident from 
the preceding words these tilings said he, 
that there had intervened some interval 
of time, before our Lord recurred again 
to the subject in the way here men- 
tioned. The calm deliberation with 
which he approached the performance 
of this miracle, second in greatness only 
to his own resurrection from the dead, 
is in perfect consistency with the 
majesty and godlike character, as well 
as tenderness, which mark all his acts 
and sayings in this wondrous transac- 
tion. Our friend Lazarus ; literally, 
Lazarus our friend. Jesus condescend- 
ingly refers to Lazarus as their common 
friend, and thus hints that his disciples 
should accompany him in his visit to 
Bethany. Sleepeth the sleep of death. 
This metaphor was not uncommon in 
the Scriptures of the Old Testament. 
See Deut. 31:16; 2 Sam. '7:12; 1 



13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his 
death : but they thought that he 
had spoken of taking of rest in 
sleep. 

14 Then said Jesus unto them 
plainly, Lazarus is dead. 

15 And I am glad for your 
sakes that I was not there, to the 
intent ye may believe ; neverthe- 
less let us go unto him. 

Kings 1:21; Ps. 13:3; Dan. 12:2. 
The verb is here in the perfect tense 
has slept, reference being had to the 
state or condition as still existing, has 
slept and is still asleep. This use of 
the perfect is common in all cultivated 
languages, modern as well as ancient. 
But J go, &c. Stier says that the verb 
here denotes an end or purpose, but 
contains at the same time the gentle 
reproach — ' Will not ye fearful ones go 
with me to our friend, to see his glori- 
ous awaking ? ' That I mag awake him. 
To awake one from the sleep of death, 
was to recall him to life. The disciples 
seem to have misinterpreted the words 
in v. 4, of a promise that Lazarus should 
recover from his sickness, and hence 
take the present declaration, as referring 
to natural and refreshing rest indicat- 
ing his speedy restoration to health. 
They would naturally be confirmed in 
their impression of the purport of v. 
4, by the apparent unconcern of Jesus 
at the sickness of his friend, and his 
delay to visit him, which seemed to 
them an assurance on his part, that he 
had passed the crisis of danger. There 
is therefore nothing strange or im- 
probable, as Strauss maintains, that the 
disciples did not here understand him 
to speak of the death of Lazarus. 
Shall do loell ; literally, shall be saved 
from death, i. e. shall recover his health. 
13. In order that the omniscience of 
Jesus may not be questioned, the Evan- 
gelist expressly declares that he re- 
ferred to the death of Lazarus, although 
his disciples so misconceived the mean- 
ing of his words. This is rendered 
still more certain in v. 14, where Jesus 
announces in plain terms the death of 



260 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



16 Then said Thomas, which is I disciples, Let us also go, that we 
called Didynms, unto his fellow may die with him. 



Lazarus. This knowledge, which he 
could have obtained from no human 
source, was of itself adapted to inspire 
them with wonder and awe. 

15. And I am glad, &c. There is an 
implied antithesis between the joy and 
hope of the following declaration, and 
the preceding sad inteligence, Lazarus 
is dead. I am glad for your salces ; 
or more literally, on your account. 
How kind and considerate in Jesus 
thus to testify his joy at that which 
would tend to confirm the faith of 
his disciples, who at this time were 
doubtless much depressed at the rejec- 
tion of their Master by the Jewish 
priests and rulers. That I was not 
there. Had our Lord been present at 
the sick bed of Lazarus, the demand 
of friendship would seem to have re- 
quired, that he should have arrested 
the disease and not permitted its fatal 
result. There would then have been 
no occasion for the great miracle 
about to be performed, by which 
the faith of his disciples was to be so 
greatly strengthened, and such glory 
was to accrue to both the Father 
and Son (v. 4). To the intent that ye 
may believe (or simply that ye may be- 
lieve), in the original precedes the clause 
that I was not there, and is to be con- 
structed with I am glad for your sakes, 
as the reason or explanation of that 
assertion. Our English translation of 
the passage is idiomatic and correct, 
although strictly less logical and em- 
phatic than the order of the Greek. 
Let us go to him. This use of the pro- 
noun, as though they were about to vis- 
it a living friend, is so remarkable, that 
we cannot but regard the exhortation 
as a varied expression of the previous 
declaration, I go that I may awake him 
out of sleep ; which, as Grotius substan- 
tially remarks, is modestly displaced by 
the let i(s go to him, because our Lord 
had plainly declared that he was dead. 

16. The disciples may have manifest- 
ed some hesitation in view of the dan- 
ger, to which such a visit to Judea would 
expose both their Master and them. 



This may account for the words of 
Thomas — who seems to be here as full 
of love and devotion to his Lord, as 
he was of doubt on a subsequent occa- 
sion (20 : 24-29) — let us die with him, 
which are by no means to be referred 
to a sympathetic death with Lazarus, 
but to an actual death with Jesus, 
should he, by this visit to Judea, fall a 
victim to the rage and malice of his 
enemies. Thomas, in accordance with 
what appears from John, as above cited, 
to have been his natural temperament, 
took a dark and discouraging view of 
this proposed visit to Judea, but with 
a true and courageous devotion to his 
Lord, expresses his determination to 
share his fate. To this he exhorts his 
fellow-disciples. But when the hour 
of trial and danger really came, he 
with all the rest "forsook him and 
fled" (Matt. 26 : 56). Webster and 
Wilkinson remark, that "this saying 
should be remembered to the honor of 
Thomas, who is chiefly known as an 
example- of unbelief." Some exposi- 
tors suppose that Thomas misconceived 
our Lord's words go to him, attaching 
to them the sense, that Jesus by his 
visit would expose himself to certain 
death, and would thus rejoin Lazarus 
in the regions of the dead. Such is 
Bengel's view, and to this Stier also in- 
clines. But Thomas obviously attached 
to his words — although rendered some- 
what strange in the use of to him, in 
reference to one who in the preceding 
breath had been declared to be dead — 
the natural sense of a return to Beth- 
any to the family of which Lazarus had 
been a member, and a visit to his tomb 
to drop the tear of friendship over his 
remains. In reference to the pertinaci- 
ty with which some refer the saying of 
Thomas to a dying with Lazarus, Stier 
well remarks : " What kind of faith in 
Christ, and what kind of devotion to 
him would it have argued, if Thomas, 
in the presence of his disciples, could 
have said that to die with another indi- 
vidual friend, would be a greater satis- 
faction to him than to live with the 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XI. 



261 



17 Then when Jesus came, he 
found that he had lain in the 
grave four days already. 

18 Now Bethany was nigh 
unto Jerusalem, about fifteen fur- 
longs off : 

Lord." " Didymus is the Greek of the 
Syro-Chaldaic 'Thomas,' and means 
a twin." Prof. Crosby. 

17. Tlien when Jesus came ; literally, 
then Jesus having come (to Bethany), 
the participial form throwing the em- 
phasis entirely on the following verb. 
As the Jewish burial places were with- 
out the city or town, and as when 
Mary went to meet Jesus, those persons 
who were with her in the house, thought 
that she had gone forth to the grave to 
weep there (see v. 31), it may be in- 
ferred, that the place where Lazarus 
wus buried, was on that side of the 
towu which Jesus here approached. 
From this we may also infer, that Jesus 
did not enter the village of Bethany, if 
at all, at least until after the raising of 
Lazarus. See v. 30. He found (on 
inquiry) that he had lain. The 
translation had been, would have been 
better, the word lain, being unneces- 
sarily supplied by not understanding 
the idiom of the verb. The literal 
rendering is, found him having been 
now in the tomb four days. This re- 
corded fact enables us to glance back 
and adjust the relative time, in which 
some of the preceding events took 
place. Two days had been spent by 
Jesus in the place where he was, when 
he received the message from Bethany 
(v. G). The journey to Bethany, which 
was about twenty-five miles from the 
place where Jesus was staying, must 
have consumed the greater part of one 
day ; and hence to make out the fourth 
day, we must suppose that Lazarus 
died soon after the messenger was de- 
spatched to Jesus, so that the day con- 
sumed in his journey may also be reck- 
oned in. See N. on v. 4. It is evi- 
dent that the interment took place very 
soon after his death, a custom which 
Stier attributes to the desire of the 



19 And many of the Jews 
came to Martha and Mary, to 
comfort them concerning their 
brother. 

20 Then Martha, as soon as 
she heard that Jesus was coming, 



Jew r s to avoid as much as possible the 
Levitical defilement. 

18, 19. Now Bethany was nigh, &c. 
This accounts for the fact that numbers 
came from Jerusalem to mourn with 
the bereaved sisters. In regard to 
Bethany, see N. on Matt. 21 : 17. It 
show r s how highly respected and be- 
loved was this family, that such sympa- 
thy was shown them by persons living 
in the city. See 1ST. on Luke 10 : 38 
(end). To Martha and Mary ; literal- 
ly, to those about Martha and Mary, 
which according to the Greek idiom 
signifies, Martha and Mary and those 
with them. See Acts 13:13, where 
Paid and his companions is literally, 
those about Paul. This shows that Laz- 
arus was not mourned for by his sis- 
ters only, but also by their household 
friends and relatives. Such was their 
affection for Lazarus, that they also 
stood in need of the sympathy of those 
who came from Jerusalem to condole 
with the sisters of the deceased. Con- 
cerning (the death of) their brother. 
This was in accordance with the usages 
of oriental friendship, which was 
stronger in its outward expression, 
than that which prevails in our age and 
country. Lange thinks that the Jews 
came in such numbers, thinking the 
opportunity favorable for recalling a 
family, which was well known to be at- 
tached to Jesus, from their error to the 
safe w T ay of ancient Judaism. But it is 
better, however, to assign to them no 
other motive than the one here given. 
That the greater part however, if not 
all of them, w r ere opposed to Jesus, 
when they came on this visit of condo- 
lence, and that some returned in a state 
of hardened unbelief, notwithstanding 
the great miracle which they witness- 
ed, is evident from v. 46. The pres- 
ence of these persons, who could not 



262 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



went and met him ; but Mary sat sus, Lord, if thou hadst been 
still in the house. here, my brother had not died. 

21 Then said Martha unto Je- 



be charged with collusion or sympathy 
•with Jesus, placed the miracle above 
denial or impeachment of any sort. 
See N. on v. 31. 

20. As soon as she had heard. Some 
one may have passed Jesus and his 
disciples on the road, and reported to 
Martha, as the head of the family, his 
approach. Sat still in the house (more 
literally, was sitting in the house), when 
the report reached Martha that Jesus 
was approaching. This is concurrent 
in time with the reception of the news 
by Martha, and is introduced to show 
why Mary did not also at this time go 
forth to meet her Lord. It is erroneous, 
therefore, with some interpreters, to 
attribute her delay to the attention 
which she felt bound to bestow upon 
her Jewish friends, or to any other cause 
whatever than her want of knowledge 
that Jesus was approaching the town. 
Such love and tenderness as hers would 
not have permitted any forms or re- 
quirements of mere politeness to her 
guests, to keep her from pouring her 
grief into the ear of Him, at whose feet 
she expressed her unbroken confidence, 
that had he been present her brother 
would not have died (v. 82). This is 
also placed beyond doubt by the 
haste with which she actually rose up 
and left her guests, when she received 
intelligence that Jesus had come and 
called for her (vs. 28, 29). Olshausen 
thinks that Martha's active habits by 
which she may have been occupied out 
of doors, was the reason why she first 
heard of Jesus ; while Mary sitting with- 
in, quiet and retiring, did not know r 
that Christ had arrived. In regard to 
the posture of grief which Mary had 
taken, see Ezra 9 : 3, 4 ; Job 2:8; Ps. 
137 : 1 ; Isa. 47 : 1 ; Ezek. 8 : 14. 

21. Martha's address to Jesus is one 
of confiding trust. She avows her con- 
viction, that the presence of her Lord 
would have prevented the death of her 
brother. Her faith is, however, too 
weak, or she thinks it too presuming, 



\ to ask his interposition, now that Laza- 
j rus is dead and his body committed to 
i the grave. That a hope of some bless- 
ed result from this unexpected visit of 
Jesus had sprung up in her bosom, is 
quite evident from the following words, 
/ know that even now (when my brother 
{ is dead) whatsoever, &c. The greatness 
of the blessing which she had some 
vague hope of receiving, is such, that 
she conceives it as coming from God 
only in answer to the all-prevalent 
prayer of Jesus. In this she was in 
part correct, for Jesus as Messiah was 
endowed by the Father with power to 
work miracles, and this power, like ev- 
ery other blessing, was bestowed in 
answer to prayer. See N. on vs. 41, 
42. Yet had Martha been enlightened 
as to the present office work of the 
Messiah, as she and her fellow believ- 
ers all were after the ascension, she 
would have expressed herself, doubt- 
less, with more direct reference to his 
inherent power to raise her brother 
from the dead. It should be noticed, 
in vindication of Martha from any 
charge of complaining against the tar- 
diness of Jesus in coming to their re- 
lief, or of expressing any vain regrets 
for the past, that she does not say 
Lord if thou hadst come here, but if 
thou hadst been here, &c. Nor does 
she make the slightest, allusion to the 
fact, that she had despatched a messen- 
ger with tidings of her brother's alarm- 
ing illness. Her language, like that 
of her sister (v. 82), was the simple 
expression of what had passed doubt- 
less oftentimes through her mind, that 
the presence of Jesus would have pre- 
vented their sad bereavement. The 
use of the singular my, instead of our 
brother, shows, as Stier remarks, that 
they had been individually moved by 
this thought, and that it was not one 
which had resulted from their commun- 
ings with each other. 

22. In this verse Martha, as has been 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XI. 



263 



22 But I know, that even now, 
•"whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, 
God will give it thee. 

23 Jesus saith unto her. Thy 
brother shall rise again. 

24 Martha saith unto him, *I 

*Ch.9:31. 

7c In. 14:14 : ch. 5:26. 
I Ch. 5 : 21 ;6c6: 39, 40, 44. 

hope that Jesus will even now interpose 
in their behalf. She makes no allusion 
or reference to the specific blessing she 
would fain receive. Perhaps she hardly 
dares to hope that her brother can in 
any manner be restored to her, and 
looks simply to the consolation which 
it was his to impart. But she embraces 
all her desires and hopes in the whatso- 
ever thou wilt ask of God, and leaves 
the matter with her Lord and Master. 
There is much to elicit our admira- 
tion for this woman, in the maimer 
in which she bore herself in the pres- 
ence of Jesus on this occasion. Even 
new stands opposed to the presence of 
Jesus during the time of her brother's 
sickness. Then he could have prevented 
his death, noic he can have whatsoever 
he asks of God. Great faith is here, 
although as we see from her objection 
to opening the grave (v. 39), not strong 
enough to anticipate the glorious mir- 
acle which was to be performed. 

'23, 24. Thy brother shall rise again. 
This promise is couched in such general 
terms, that Martha hardly dares to in- 
terpret it as referring to other than the 
general resurrection. In her reply, I 
know that he shall rise again, &c, she 
alludes to this grand event, hoping 
thereby to draw from him some more 
specific ground of encouragement. But 
instead of disclosing to her at once his 
merciful intention, he proceeds to en- 
lighten her in regard to his spiritual, 
life-giving power, which secures the 
resurrection and the life of believers, 
and exempts them forever from the 
power and dominion of death. This 
was a far richer and more glorious 
promise, than any pledge immediate or 
remote, that he would raise her brother 
from the grave. That would be but 



know that he shall rise again in 
the resurrection at the last day. 

25 Jesus said unto her, I am 
1 the resurrection, and the m life : 
" he that believeth in me, though 
he were dead, yet shall he live : 

m Ch. 1:4; &6:35; &14:6: Col. 3:4; 1 Jo. 

1:1.2: £5:11. 

n Ch. 8:86; 1 Jo. 5:10, &c. 

the restoration of him to a few years 
of life on earth ; this was a promise to 
her and all believers of a glorious and 
blessed immortality beyond the grave. 
25. I am the resurrection. It is by 
my power that the resurrection of the 
dead shall take place. Anel the life. I 
am the source of all life. This in refer- 
ence to the good, is inclusive of all the 
blessedness and peace which are con- 
nected with eternal life in heaven ; with 
the wicked, it is life in death, or exist- 
ence in the midst of misery and de- 
spair, so great and overwhelming that 
it is well denominated eternal death. 
The expression and the life, is not the 
mere repetition of the preceding clause, 
but an advance on that great declara- 
tion. The logical connection of the 
clause is this : ' the life-giving power of 
Jesus, which essentially belongs to him' 
as the Life of the world, ensures the 
final resurrection of which it is the 
great cause.' So Stier well expresses it : 
' I am the resurrection, because I am 
the life.' It were to deprive this great 
utterance of its principal significancy, 
to restrict it to a physical resurrection 
and life of the body, although that is 
included, as something which the faith 
of Martha might easily grasp. But the 
following context, which is our Lord's 
own comment upon this declara- 
tion, forbids our referring it solely or 
principally to the resurrection of the 
body. It is a resurrection to life in its 
highest and most glorious sense, and 
as the greater includes the less, the 
resurrection of the body is embraced 
also in the meaning of the term. He 
that believeth, kc. The interpretation 
of this clause of v. 25, and the follow- 
ing verse — which, ashasbeen remarked, 
is the commentarv of our Lord himself 



264 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



26 And whosoever liveth and 



upon his previous declaration, that he 
is " the resurrection and the life" — be- 
comes easy and clear, if the life spoken 
of be regarded, as one purely spiritual, 
and so transcendently glorious and 
blessed, that physical death loses all its 
power and importance (1 Cor. 15 : 55), 
when brought into comparison with it. 
It seems to have been the design of our 
Lord to divert the thoughts of Martha 
from the resurrection of her brother to 
mere physical life, to that greater and 
more glorious rising into spiritual life, 
resulting from faith in the Son of God, 
and embracing, as above stated, as a 
necessary result the resurrection of the 
body. This spiritual awakening to life, 
was that which rendered death itself 
powerless to retain its victims, over 
whom it had possessed a temporary 
sway. This was the victory in which 
death was to be swallowed up (1 Cor. 
15 : 54), and disappear forever from 
the regions of bliss to which God's 
people were to be raised. This general 
idea will be seen more clearly in the 
comments which follow. He that be- 
lieveth in me. This establishes the fact, 
that the exemption from death in its 
highest sense, which is promised in this 
passage, is pledged to the believer only, 
the resurrection of the wicked from the 
grave not being at all included in this 
promise. TJtough he were dead (liter- 
ally, even if he have died physically), 
yet shall he live. The death of the 
body shall not prevent his resurrection 
to life eternal, or interrupt for a mo- 
ment his blessedness in the love and 
favor of God. Hence physical death 
is not to be invested with gloom, 
nor regarded as the least bar to happi- 
ness beyond the grave. 

26. And whosoever (literally all, every 
one who) liveth. Here physical life is 
referred to, for there is a manifest an- 
tithesis between this clause, and though 
he were dead, in v. 25, which, as we 
have seen (N. on v. 25), must be referred 
to physical death. The following clause, 
and bclieveth in me, shows beyond all 
question that reference is had to a liv- 



believeth in me shall never die. 
Believest thou this ? 



ing believer, one who has not yet been 
subject to physical death. Thus our 
Lord brings in juxtaposition, a be- 
liever yet alive on earth, and one who 
has departed this life. Of the latter it 
is affirmed he shall live ; of the former, 
he shall never die. What is the mean- 
ing of this twofold and somewhat para- 
doxical assertion ? Simply that the 
believer in Christ — who has just declar- 
ed himself to be " the resurrection and 
the life" — whether living or dead, is 
the subject of eternal life, or a state of 
endless felicity beyond the grave. The 
obvious inference, which our Lord in- 
tended Martha to draw, and which he 
designed as a corrective of her deep 
despondency in view of the death of 
her brother, was, that physical death is 
a thing of minor consideration, affect- 
ing not in the least the future blessed- 
ness of such as believed in him. The 
two great senses in which life and death 
are here employed, are easily distin- 
guished ; and it is a marvel that learned 
and pious commentators should find in 
the passage such obscurity as some of 
them do. The resurrection of the 
body, though not distinctly affirmed in 
this passage, is nevertheless implied in 
it. Thus Stier, to the great confusion 
of the clauses which have so plain and 
direct a correspondency one Avith an- 
other, denies that whosoever liveth has 
any reference to physical existence, but 
signifies, he that liveth in Jesus by faith. 
Of such a one the next clause affirms 
that he has in himself the principle of 
the resurrection, and of the final vic- 
tory over death. But stripped as the 
passage is of its antithetic character by 
such an exposition, we may well ask 
this distinguished expositor, what new 
idea over and above what has just been 
asserted, is contained in these words. 
The preceding assertion : ' he that be- 
lieveth on me shall live even though he 
die (naturally),' is followed on Stier's in- 
terpretation, by the meaningless repeti- 
tion, ' every one who liveth in faith shall 
never die.' Believest thou this? Our 
Lord would have Martha's assent to 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XI. 



265 



27 She saith unto him, Yea, 
Lord : ° I believe that thou art 
the Christ, the Son of God, 



which 
world. 



should come into the 



o Mt. 1G: 10; ch. 4: 42; & 0:14, 09. 



this great and cheering truth. It was 
designed not only to instruct her in re- 
gard to the higher life, in which all 
minor ills were to be swallowed up ; but 
to comfort her in her deep affliction, as 
thousands, in similar circumstances of 
bereavement since her time, have drawn 
consolation from the passage. With 
what sweet and controlling power have 
the words of Jesus, I am the resurrection 
and the life, been apprehended by the 
mourner, when taking a last look at the 
remains of some dear departed one, or 
bending over the grave where the loved 
form lies buried from sight. 

27. Alford thinks that Martha did 
not fully enter into the great central 
point of the truth which Jesus had 
just uttered. But when we remember 
with what diversity of views expositors 
even of our day rise up from the con- 
templation of the passage, we cannot 
but think she was as likely to hit the 
true meaning as any of us, assisted as 
she must have been in the comprehen- 
sion of his words by the emphasis, 
tone, and manner, in which they were 
spoken by our Lord. Yea, Lord. 
Martha promptly replies in the affirm- 
ative. But fearing that she may have 
professed assent to truths beyond the 
depth of her own understanding, with 
straightforward simplicity and frank- 
ness she refers her confidence in his 
utterances to the fact of her firm belief 
in his Messiahship, in which office he 
was to be the revealer of just such 
heavenly truths as this. This confes- 
sion of her faith in the Messiahship of 
Jesus may be well compared with that 
of Peter (6 : 69), made on an occasion, 
in which Jesus had been giving utter- 
ance to truths, so spiritual and beyond 
the comprehension of the unenlight- 
ened natural intellect, that many even 
of his disciples left him and walked no 
more with him. In both instances, 
Yol. Ill 12 



28 And when she had so said, 
she went her way, and called 
Mary her sister secretly, saying, 
The Master is come, and calleth. 
for thee. 



the confession of his Messiahship is in- 
tended as an attestation to the truth 
of what he had spoken, not so much 
because it was understood by Peter 
and Martha, as on the ground of their 
undiminished confidence in him as the 
Great Teacher sent from God. I be- 
lieve that thou, &c. This was the usual 
formula of profession of faith in Jesus 
as the Messiah. See Matt. 16:10; 
Acts 8 : 37. The tense of the verb re- 
fers the belief of Martha to that which 
is permanent and well fixed. / have 
believed, i. e. 'I have before this ar- 
rived at the full belief, and such also 
is my present conviction, that thou art 
the Christ, who was to come into the 
world.' Peter's form of confession 
(6 : 69) was a little more full, we be- 
lieve and are sure ; and instead of Mar- 
tha's Son of God, he employs the words 
Son of the living God. Martha, how- 
ever, adds as a sort of supplemental 
clause, a third mark of his Messiahship, 
which was to come into the ivorld ; liter- 
ally, he that comcth, the Coming One. 
This was one of the designations of the 
Messiah. See N". on Matt, 11:3. See also 
Luke 17 : 20 ; John 6:14; Rev. 1 : 4-8. 
28. She went her way, &c. Commen- 
tators are fond of discerning in this 
hasty movement of Martha to call her 
sister, evidence of that prompt and 
energetic action which marked her 
character in Luke 10 : 38-42. But are 
we not virtually told in the words 
calleth for thee, that she went for Mary 
at the command of Jesus, or, at least, 
at some intimation from him that her 
sister was to be called? Stier denies 
that Jesus actually inquired for Mary, 
for, in that case, John would have re- 
lated it. He attributes Martha's sum- 
mons of her sister to the sense of her 
own comparative inability to attain to 
the full understanding of those great 
truths to which Jesus had given utter- 



266 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



29 As soon as she heard that, 
she arose quickly, and came unto 
him. 

30 Now Jesus was not yet 
come into the town, hut was in 
that place where Martha met 
him. 



ance, and her conviction that Mary 
must hear this great declaration, which 
was for her above all others. But if 
such liberty is to be taken with the 
message the Master calleth for thee, 
which Martha bore to her sister, as to 
consider it her own language — no inti- 
mation of his desire to see Mary having 
been made by Jesus — it would be far 
more natural to refer it to a sisterly 
wish that Mary should enjoy also the 
comforting words of our Lord, than to 
a sense on Martha's part, that the truth 
to which she had just listened, was 
adapted to the spiritual and contempla- 
tive character of her sister rather than 
to herself. Her self-reliant character 
would not render such a view very 
probable. But aside from all these 
considerations, the words of the mes- 
sage are too definite and direct to ad- 
mit of its being regarded in any other 
light, than an actual summons of Jesus 
for Mary to come to him. Secretly, so 
that she might enjoy a more private 
and uninterrupted interview with Jesus, 
than if she should openly announce his 
presence in the hearing of the Jews 
who were with her. 

29. As soon as she heard that (liter- 
ally, when she heard the words of her 
sister), she arose from her posture of 
grief. See v. 20. Quickly, being in- 
cited to haste by the love which she 
bore her Lord, and by the hopeful, 
cheerful expression, which appeared in 
Martha's tone and countenance. 

30. This verse serves to explain the 
position of the parties, and to show 
why the Jews supposed that Mary was 
going to the grave of Lazarus, which, 
as has been remarked (N". on v. 17), was 
without the town, on the side which 
Jesus approached. For the burial of 
bodies without the limits of cities and 



31 p The Jews then which were 
with her in the house, and com- 
forted her, when they saw Mary, 
that she rose up hastily and went 
out, followed her, saying, She 
goeth unto the grave to weep 
there. 

p Yer. 19. 

villages, see N. on Luke 7 : 12. Was 
in that place, &c. He remained there 
waiting for Mary. The faith of both 
the sisters was to be confirmed, before 
he wrought the miracle which he con- 
templated. There was no undue haste 
in his movements, which throughout 
the whole transaction were those of 
conscious dignity and power. 

31. Which were with her, &c. After the 
burial of the dead, the friends of the 
mourners remained a short season with 
them, and "prepared food in order to 
refresh them after such a season of suf- 
ering and grief." Dr. Jahn. Hastily. 
This sudden movement on the part of 
Mary seemed to indicate an outburst 
of grief, which would lead her to re- 
pair to the tomb of her brother, there 
to weep his loss. Went out (of the 
house) and followed her. Thus, with- 
out any notice on the part of Jesus of 
what he was about to do, the Jews of 
their own accord repaired to the tomb, 
and became witnesses of the resurrec- 
tion of Lazarus. It rendered their 
testimony in regard to this stupendous 
miracle all the more valuable, that their 
presence was wholly voluntary. She 
goeth unto the grave to weep there. The 
pathos and tenderness of this reference 
to Mary's grief, together with their 
tears of sympathy at her distress (see v. 
33), show that Stier misjudges these 
Jews when he says, " they will not al- 
low the poor bent mourner, as hereto- 
fore, to weep alone at the grave ; they 
persecute her, as it were, with their 
unfeeling presence and sympathy." It 
cannot be denied that through want of 
judgment, and in the very excess of 
sympathy, the sanctity of private grief 
is often invaded by friends, in their 
honest, but misplaced efforts to divert 
the mind of mourners from their sor- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XL 



267 



32 Then when Mary was come 
where Jesus was, and saw him, 
she fell down at his feet, saying 
unto him, q Lord, if thou hadst 
been here, my brother had not 
died. 

rows ; but there is nothing to warrant 
the belief, that these Jews were not 
actuated in what they did, by the 
purest motives of friendship. They 
followed Mary to the grave, not rudely 
or unfeelingly, but through fear of the 
effect of excessive grief upon her, to 
impart consolation, and induce her 
speedy return to the house. It is evi- 
dent from v. 39, that Martha also re- 
turned to Jesus and accompanied him 
to the grave. Thus, naturally, and 
without any aim at publicity on the 
part of our Lord, this most wonderful 
of all his miracles is witnessed by the 
whole company. 

32. She fell down,kc. " The words 
of Mary are fewer, and her action more 
impassioned than those of her sister." 
Alf'ord. Her prostration at Jesus' feet 
evinces her deep and overwhelming 
sorrow and her great veneration for 
him. Lord, if thou, &c. She utters 
precisely the same words as had been 
spoken by Martha (v. 21). This is not 
strange, when we reflect that they had 
probably expressed this sentiment many 
times, as they were giving utterance to 
their regret at the absence of Jesus 
from the sick-bed of Lazarus. 

33. At sight of Mary overwhelm sd 
with grief, and the Jews weeping around 
her, Jesus could no longer repress his 
sympathy, but groaned in the (i. e. his) 
spirit and was troubled. The latter verb 
explains the former, which literally signi- 
fies, to murmur against, to be moved with 
indignation against one, and hence has 
the secondary signification to be excited, i 
troubled. The words in the spirit, are to 
be taken in the sense of internal grief, 
as opposed to the more outward mani- 
festation of it, which he made at the 
grave (v. 35). Alford, denying this 
secondary meaning of the verb, refers 
it to his checking the tears of sympa- 
thy, which were ready to start" forth 



33 When Jesus therefore saw 
her weeping, and the Jews also 
weeping which came with her, 
he groaned in the spirit and was 
troubled, 

q Yer. 21. 

and overcome his power of speech. 
By this mastery of his feelings, he was 
enabled to ask the question which fol- 
lows. This view, which is that also of 
Webster and Wilkinson, makes good 
sense, but is too forced to admit of our 
adopting it as the true exposition. Xor 
does it agree well with the following verb 
icas troubled, which is evidently added 
to impart emphasis, by a repetition of 
the general idea. Olshausen, Sticr, and 
Trench, refer it to our Lord's indigna- 
tion against sin and death, which was 
the cause of such distress as then met 
his eyes. But this departs also from 
the simple and well-defined context, 
which points evidently to his sympa- 
thy with the distress of those around 
him, rather than to his indignation at 
the ruin and misery entailed by sin 
upon the race. Dr. Robinson compares 
its use with the Hebrew verb rendered 
sad, in Gen. 40 : 6, and by the LXX. 
disturbed; also with the one rendered 
worse liking (LXX. having a gloomy 
countenance) in Dan. 1 : 10. The pre- 
ceding clause, when Jesus therefore saio 
her weeping, and the following verb 
was troubled, refer the verb translated 
groaned in spirit, most unquestionably 
to a deep feeling of grief, and not to 
the rebuking of such a feeling. Was 
troubled; literally, disturbed himself, 
which Bengel makes reciprocal to the 
preceding verb, that referring to his 
rebuking or curbing in his feelings ; 
this, to his excitation of them, thus 
manifesting his power over his emo- 
tions, to repress or excite them at his 
pleasure. But this is too refined and 
coldly philosophical for such an occa- 
sion. There is but one meaning which 
suits the passage, and that is the one 
substantially expressed in our English 
version. 

8L Where have ye laid him ? The 
most natural interpretation of this ques- 



268 



JOHN. 



[A. D. .33. 



34 And said, Where have ye 
laid him ? They said unto him, 
Lord, come and see. 



tion, is that which lies upon its face, 
that Jesus by inquiring for the place of 
his burial, virtually asks to be conduct- 
ed to it. This comports with their re- 
ply, come and see ; in which they evi- 
dently betray an impression, that some 
wonderful manifestation of his power 
is about to be made, and are there- 
fore eager to conduct him to the tomb. 
But Stier, with a most amazing over- 
sight of the simple and natural train of 
thought, refers this question to a de- 
sign on his part to announce before- 
hand what he had determined to do. 
The fact that he was misunderstood by 
the Jews to inquire the place of the 
sepulchre, excites anew his indignation 
at their want of faith, which indignation 
against the faithless generation and the 
power of death over the race which 
would seize even his own spirit, re- 
solves itself into gentler sorrow, as in- 
dicated in the following verse. Thus 
the tears of love and sympathy which 
Jesus shed on this occasion, are ex- 
plained by this commentator, as the re- 
solving of indignation into sorrow, at 
the power of death over the race and 
its approach to seize even his own 
spirit. We cannot for a moment adopt 
so frigid an interpretation of the pas- 
sage, which is the more wonderful as 
that of one, whose comments are usu- 
ally instinct with all the warmth of love 
and tender emotion. 

35. This is the shortest verse in the 
Bible, but one which speaks volumes 
in regard to the human sympathies of 
Jesus. Here is abundant proof of his 
participation in our nature and his 
share in our sorrows. See Heb. 2:17; 
4:15. Sec N. on 5 : 27. It was 
when he was on his way to the tomb 
(see v. 38), that he gave vent to his 
emotions of grief. The question some- 
times asked why our Lord wept thus, 
when he was about to raise at a word 
his friend from the grave, evinces so 
little sympathy with this scene of suf- 



35 '' Jesus wept. 

36 Then said the Jews, Behold 
how he loved him ! 



r Lu. 19 : 41. 



fering, that it is scarcely deserving of an 
answer. We must always recognize in 
Jesus the possession of a divine and 
human nature, each complete in all its 
appropriate properties and functions. 
In his mysterious and complex charac- 
ter as God-man, some things are to be 
predicated of his human, and others, 
of his divine nature. As one possessed 
of a sympathizing human nature (Heb. 
4 : 15), he comforts Martha, sends for 
Mary, weeps with them on his way to 
the grave. But as the Son of God, the 
resurrection and the life, he displays at 
the proper time his divine power, and 
by recalling Lazarus from the tomb, 
gives an earnest of the final victory 
which he will achieve over death, and 
of his power to bestow life everlasting 
on all his people. The raising of Laz- 
arus is to be classed, therefore, in a 
manner with the raising of the dead at 
the last day, of which it was the ear- 
nest and pledge, and equally illustra- 
tive of our Lord's divine nature and 
power. Olshausen's objection to this 
view, that it leads to a Nestorian sepa- 
ration between the Divine and human 
in Christ, is based on a mistaken sup- 
position, that it implies two distinct sets 
of mental operations and emotions in 
the mind of Christ. Such a view would 
be both erroneous and untenable. But 
that some acts and qualities of Jesus 
are to be predicated of his human 
rather than his divine nature, no one 
can well doubt. See a more full and 
complete discussion of this in N. on 
Matt. 24 : 36. 

36. This remark of the Jews is re- 
corded to show the depth of grief which 
overpowered Jesus at this time. The 
greatness of his love was argued from 
the greatness of his grief. It shows 
also that he must have wept some min- 
utes, to give occasion for the remarks 
here made by the wondering Jews. 

37. And (literally, but) some of them 
said. These were of the number who 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XI. 



269 



37 And some of them said, 
Could not this man, "which open- 
ed the eyes of the blind, have 
caused that even this man should 
not have died ? 

came from Jerusalem (v. 19), and were 
hostile to Jesus. These persons are 
those referred to in v. 40, although 
some of them may have yielded after- 
wards to the evidence furnished by the 
miracle, so as to be included in those 
mentioned in v. 45. Their presence 
added to the credibility of the miracle, 
and protected it from the charge of 
having been trumped up for the occa- 
sion. Olshausen does not rank these 
persons with the enemies of Jesus. 
The conjunction but, with which the 
verse begins, seems, however, to refer 
them to a different class of persons, 
than those who spoke so warmly of the 
love which Jesus bore to Lazarus. The 
scornful terms in which they refer to 
him, in the question proposed to one 
another, could not this man, &c, not 
acknowledging him as a prophet or 
even a religious teacher, are a clear in- 
dex of their unbelief in him. Which 
opened, &c. The miracle of the blind 
man is referred to, because it was an 
affair of recent occurrence, and well- 
known from the discussion in the tem- 
ple which grew out of it, and its exas- 
perating influence upon the priests and 
rulers. The great miracle at Nain, and 
the restoration to life of Jairus' daugh- 
ter, happening in Galilee, had been 
brought less to the notice of the Jews 
at Jerusalem, or were regarded as the 
fabrications of his disciples ; and hence 
they ignore these miracles which might 
have been more pertinently referred to 
on this occasion. In the words which 
opened the eyes of the blind, they did 
not necessarily admit the reality of the 
miracle. It was rather a supposition of 
its truth, in order to draw a damaging 
inference in regard to the power of Je- 
sus to work miracles. This will appear 
if we paraphrase their words : ' If this 
man restored the blind to sight, as he 
claimed to do, could he not have caused 
that even this man should not have 



38 Jesus therefore again groan- 
ing in himself cometh to the 
grave. It was a cave, and a 
stone lay upon it. 

s Ch. 9 : 6. 

died? The fact that he did not pre- 
vent his friend's death, throws great 
discredit on the previous miracles 
which he claims to have performed.' 
It is worthy of remark, that neither the 
sisters Martha and Mary, nor the Jews, 
seem to have referred the power of Je- 
sus to anything beyond the prevention 
of Lazarus' death. In Martha, we 
have seen, however, that his presence 
inspired some hope of a gracious 
interposition, although she had very 
little conception of the sublime mani- 
festation of his power which was soon to 
take place. There was reason then, that 
he should precede this grand illustra- 
tion of his divine power, by proclaiming 
himself to her, and through her to all, 
as the Resurrection and the Life (v. 25). 
Even (i. e. also) refers to the commu- 
nity of suffering between Lazarus and 
the blind man, although under different 
forms of infliction. ' Could not a cure 
have been effected in the case of Laza- 
rus, as well as in that of the blind man? 
Did not his friend also have claims upon 
his healing power, as well as a poor 
blind beggar ?' 

38. Again as before (v. 33). Groan- 
ing in himself. This repetition of the 
words in this connection, confirms me 
in the belief, that the usual interpreta- 
tion affixed to them is the true one (see 
N. on v. 33). After the indulgence of 
tears of grief, nothing is more natural 
than the signs of inward perturbation, 
expressed in groans, sobs, and long- 
drawn sighs. It was a cave, &c. See N. 
on Matt. 27 : 52. This cave was in part 
at least a natural excavation, or else 
the words hewn out of a rock, would 
doubtless have been added (see Matt. 
2*7 : 60). A stone lay upon it. We 
must not suppose from this, that the 
sepulchre was like our graves extend- 
ing downward, so that a stone or cover 
could be placed upon or over its mouth. 
The recess was nearly or quite horizon- 



270 



JOHN, 



[A. D. S3. 



39 Jesus said, Take ye away 
the stone. Martha, the sister of 
him that was dead, saith unto 

tal with the bystander, so that when 
Lazarus was commanded to come forth, 
there was nothing in the position of the 
tomb which rendered this impossible. 
The words lay upon it, must therefore 
be interpreted, lay at or against, i. e. 
leaning over, so as to partially incline 
upon the mouth of the tomb. See K". 
on Matt. 27 : 60. Webster and Wil- 
kinson very well remark, that a bury- 
ing-place of this kind seems to indi- 
cate that Lazarus' family was one of 
wealth and importance. See Ns. on v. 
18 ; Luke 10 : 38 (end). Of the tomb 
of Lazarus, which like other sacred 
places is shown to travellers, Thomson 
(Land and Book, vol. ii. p. 599), who 
descended it by twenty-five slippery 
steps, says that he has no description 
to give, it being " a wretched cavern, 
every way unsatisfactory, and almost 
disgusting." 

39. The command of Jesus to take 
away the stone, was doubtless given im- 
mediately upon his arrival at the sepul- 
chre. There Avas now to be no delay 
in the performance of the great mira- 
cle, which has never been transcended, 
save in the miracle of his own resurrec- 
tion from the tomb of Joseph of Ari- 
mathea. " Step by step he approaches 
gradually the great act, in order to 
qualify the amazement of poor mortal 
eyes on beholding the glory of God. 
He might indeed have himself com- 
manded the stone to roll itself away, as 
a mountain or a fig-tree ; he might 
even have commanded Lazarus to come 
forth through the impediment of the 
stone. But the miracles of God avoid 
with the supremest propriety all that is 
superfluous." Stier. TJie sister of him 
that ivas dead. These words seem to be 
added to show that Martha, by her in- 
timate relationship with the deceased, 
felt that she had a right to interpose 
the objection which she did to the 
opening of the grave. Lord, by this 
time he stinketh. The original is much 
more brief: now (he) smelleth, i. e. has 



him, Lord, by this time he stink- 
eth : for he hath been dead four 

days. 

the smell of a body in a state of cor- 
ruption and decay. This objection of 
Martha to the removal of the stone, is 
regarded by some as proof that she had 
no idea of what was coming, although 
the apostles must have had some pre- 
sentiment, and Mary assuredly so, of 
the purpose for which the stone, was di- 
rected to be removed. This may have 
been so ; but it can hardly be inferred 
from these words of hers, which are 
rather to be attributed to a natural re- 
vulsion of feeling at opening the tomb 
and exposing the loathsome remains 
of her brother. As to the words he 
stinketh, which Olshausen regards not 
as a fact, but an impression of Martha's 
in view of the length of time in which 
Lazarus had been dead, I cannot but 
think that they are expressive of a 
reality, forced upon them all by the un- 
pleasant smell which may have come 
from the tomb even while yet unclosed, 
and showing beyond a doubt that cor- 
ruption had fully commenced. It was 
necessary that the body of Lazarus 
should be subject to all the conditions 
of bodies in the embrace of death, in 
order to protect the miracle from the 
objection which might have been 
advanced against its validity, that 
he had only fallen into a swoon, 
from which the entrance of fresh 
air into the tomb, and the loud 
and startling utterance of his name by 
our Lord, had aroused him. The ve- 
racity of Jesus and John, Prof. Ken- 
drick (Note on Olshausen) remarks, 
would render the miracle above suspi- 
cion. But what if the veracity of Je- 
sus and John were questioned, as in 
the early ages of Christianity it was, 
and has been in like manner by skepti- 
cism and infidelity ever since ; would 
there not be in this evidence of the 
senses, an irrefragable proof that Laz- 
arus was actually dead, and that there- 
fore his restoration to life was a true 
and stupendous miracle? It is averred 
that this unpleasant smell of the dead 



A.D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XI. 



271 



40 Jesus saith unto her, Said 
I not unto thee, that, if thou 
wouldest believe, thou shouldest 
' see the glory of God ? 

11 Then they took away the 

t X. 4:23. 

body is not spoken of as an actual fact, 
but only as the impression of Martha, 
for which she gives her reason in the 
following clause, for lie hath been dead 
four days. But if it be not actually 
affirmed, it is equally true that it is not 
denied ; and in this equibalance between 
the two views, Martha's impression 
must be certainly entitled to great 
weight. The fact that this burial took 
place in the winter (see 10 : 22, 40-42), 
is adduced by some in proof that de- 
composition had not yet begun to take 
place. But winter and summer would 
produce very little difference of tem- 
perature, in a cave closely shut up. 
The idea suggested by Olshausen, that 
if decomposition had already begun, as 
Martha's words indicated, it would give 
a monstrous character to the miracle, 
is of no weight, when it is borne in 
mind at whose potent voice Lazarus 
came forth, and how suddenly his body 
may have been transformed from decay 
and corruption to the vigor and bloom 
of health. For he hath been dead four 
days ; literally, for lie is in the fourth 
day (of death), the state or condition 
of the subject during the time being 
mentally supplied. So we say of one, 
he is in his tenth year, meaning there- 
by, the age at which he has arrived. 

40. Said I not, kc. Reference is had 
to what was implied in vs. 25, 26, or 
perhaps to some conversation not re- 
corded. Expositors are mostly agreed, 
that these words of our Lord are in- 
tended as a gentle rebuke to Martha, 
for the weakness and dulness of her 
faith, in not perceiving that his direc- 
tion in regard to the removal of the 
6tone, was for a far different purpose, 
than simply to behold the body of Laz- 
arus. If thou wouldest believe. Faith 
is the condition on which the rich prom- 
ises of the gospel are fulfilled. Even 
eo great a miracle as that which Jesus 



stone from the place -where the 
dead was laid. And Jesus lifted 
up his eyes, and said, Father, I 
thank thee that thou hast heard 



me. 



was about to perform, and upon which 
such momentous consequences depend- 
ed, was in danger of being retarded, if 
not absolutely hindered, by the unbe- 
lief of Martha. ' Said I not unto thee 
that if thou wouldest believe (but on no 
other condition), thou shoxddest see the 
glory of God? ' There is an evident 
antithesis between the glory of God, as 
displayed in the restoration of Lazarus 
to life and health, and the revolting 
spectacle of decay and death, which 
Martha brought forward as an objec- 
tion to the removal of the stone from 
the mouth of the cave. Our Lord as- 
sures her, that by belief in him she 
should see, instead of the ghastly re- 
mains of her brother, the glory of God. 
But this expression is not to be limited to 
the manifestation of divine glory in the 
raising of Lazarus, but embraces in its 
comprehensive sweep, that also which 
results from the resurrection to life of 
all believers, of which this event was the 
symbol. 

41. Martha making no further objec- 
tion to the removal of the stone, the 
mortal remains of Lazarus are now ex- 
posed to view, and every ground of 
cavil that he was not really dead, is re- 
moved by the actual sight of him re- 
posing in death. And Jesus said, Fa- 
ther, &c. We have no other recorded 
instance of a prayer, offered by Jesus 
previous to his performance of a mira- 
cle. The design would seem to be 
to prevent those present from inferring, 
that he raised Lazarus by any act of 
his own dissociated from the Father; 
or that in this, as well as in every other 
proof which he gave of his divine mis- 
sion, he was not acting in subordination 
to the will and purpose of Him who 
sent him. " The man Jesus does not 
accomplish his works in the immediate 
possession of ahnightiness, but performs 
them like man, through prayer and 



272 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



42 And I knew that thou near- 
est me always : but " "because of 
the people which stand by I said 
it, that they may believe that 
thou hast sent me. 



43 And when he thus had 
spoken, he cried with a loud 
voice, Lazarus, come forth. 

u Ch. 12 : 30. 



faith." Stier. But this prayer not 
only shows our Lord's official subordi- 
nation to the Father, and the intimate 
communion which subsists between 
them ; it proves also that his prayers 
had reference to special and particular 
blessings and gifts. We are not told 
here in so many words, that Jesus had 
prayed for power to raise Lazarus ; but 
in this expression of thanks thus openly 
and publicly made, that he has been 
heard by the Father, it is fully implied. 
But when was this prayer offered? 
Probably at the time when by the ex- 
ercise of his omniscience, he first knew 
of the death of Lazarus, or previous to 
what is recorded in v. 4. Lifted up his 
eyes, as was his custom when address- 
ing his Father. That thou hast heard 
me. " He thanks Him for the result 
before it was obtained." Webster and 
Wilkinson. 

42. And Ihnew, &c. In this respect, 
as in every other, our Lord's prayers 
were in great advance of those of his 
followers. His prayers were always 
heard (Heb. 5 : 7), being offered by a 
sinless being, not to speak of his essen- 
tial unity with the Father, which made 
his will or desire that also of his Father. 
Our prayers are oftentimes the out- 
pourings of sin and unbelief (see James 
4:3); but his petitions were the ex- 
pression of a holy mind, actuated by 
the most disinterested love for those 
whom he came to redeem, and also by 
a supreme desire to promote the glory 
of God his Father. This expression of 
confidence that the Father had heard 
his prayer, was designed to show the 
people who stood by, that his thanks- 
giving (v. 41) did not imply any doubt 
on his part that he would be thus 
heard. The pronoun it, in I said it, is 
wanting in the original, but is very 
properly supplied in our version, and 
refers evidently to the expression of 
thankfulness with which his prayer 



commenced (v. 41). Because of the 
people, &c. The recognition in his 
prayer, that the great miracle which 
he was about to perform, was done 
with the concurrent will of his Father, 
and by the communication of prayer 
and grace bestowed upon him in an- 
swer to prayer, established beyond a 
doubt the truth of his oft -repeated dec- 
laration, that he had been sent of God; 
and that between him and the Father 
there subsisted such intimate and es- 
sential union, that his declaration was 
true that he and his Father were one. 
This prayer at the grave of Lazarus il- 
lustrates and enforces such passages as 
5:19-21, 36, 3*7; 8:16, 18, 29, 42; 
10:25,30,38; 14:11. That they 
may believe that thou hast sent me, i. e. 
that evidence of my divine mission may 
be furnished in the answer to my pray- 
er, such as will challenge the belief of 
all who see or hear of the miracle. 

43. We now reach the point towards 
which the narrative has been culminat- 
ing, where our Lord performs one of the 
most stupendous miracles ever wrought 
on earth, and which connects the great 
procession of miracles recorded by the 
Evangelists, with the last and crowning 
one — his own resurrection. It is no- 
ticeable with what a dignity the transac- 
tion is invested, from the time when at 
Perea our Lord first received the mes- 
sage of his friend's sickness, to the 
present moment, when he is about to 
command the grave to yield up one of 
its victims, as a pledge of the future 
deliverance from its thraldom of all 
who believe in him. He cried with a 
loud voice, that all the people might 
hear and know that the bands of death 
were loosed at his command. The full, 
clear tones in which the words of Jesus 
were spoken, form a striking contrast 
with the low and mumbling incantations 
of magicians and necromancers, in their 
unholy efforts to evoke the dead from 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XI. 



273 



44 And ho that was dead came 
forth, bound hand and foot with 
graveclothes ; and z his face was 



x Ch. 20 : 7. 



their graves, in order to receive through 
them some communication from the 
unseen world. Stier has some valuable 
remarks on the impotency of these mag- 
ical whisperings, and mutterings, and 
evocations of the dead. The sublimity 
of the words Lazarus, come forth, is 
hardly inferior to that of God said let 
there be light, &c. The sequel of each 
fiat is strikingly similar : and lie that 
was dead (more literally the dead) came 
forth. So in the great command in 
Gen. 1 : 3, the effect is simply given, 
and there was light, or more literally, 
and light icas. Indeed there is a closer 
and more profound resemblance in 
these two great acts of Omnipotence, 
than appears even in the language. The 
one was the creation and introduction 
of light to the physical world ; the 
other, the dispelling of the darkness 
which had hitherto hung in unbroken 
gloom over the grave. A question is 
sometimes raised as to the precise time 
when the vivification took place. 
Chrysostom, Lampe, and Tholuck, say 
that it was before the I thank thee (v. 
41) ; and that the command Lazarus 
come forth, was the mere summons for 
him to make his appearance to his 
friends as a living man. But for 
reasons given in N. on v. 39, I think 
that the body lay full in sight as a ver- 
itable corpse, until the commard of 
Jesus restored it wiih the suddenLess of 
an electric spark, to life, health, and 
physical comeliness. 

44. Game forth. Some refer the 
tense here to an attempted act, and 
translate, endeavored to come forth, but 
was hindered by the grave-clothes in 
which he had been bound. But this is 
contrary to the very nature of the 
Greek aorist, which is never employed 
in this sense. Bound hand and foot, 
&c. This swathing in grave-clothes 
was not so compressed around the 
limbs, as to impede all motion. Hence 
there is no necessity of supposing that 
Vol. III.— 12* 



bound about with a napkin. Jesus 
saith unto them, Loose him, and 
let him go. 



Jesus miraculously imparted to him the 
power to move, when natural motion 
would have been impossible. The 
words loose him and let him, go, indi- 
cate, however, that his movements 
were to some considerable extent im- 
peded by the bandages around the 
limbs. Doddridge thinks that the 
folds around were partially loosened by 
the power of Christ, so as to permit 
him to move. But this again would 
imply a new exercise of his miraculous 
power, as much so as the view of Stier 
and others, who think, as above re- 
marked, that the power of motion was 
also bestowed upon Lazarus, inasmuch 
as he was so tightly swathed as to ren- 
der any movement on his part well 
nigh impossible. The word rendered 
grave-clothes, is only found here in the 
New Testament, another word of kin- 
dred signification being used in 19: 
40; Luke 24:12. On this mode of 
preparing the body for burial, see X. 
on Matt. 27 : 59. A napkin or handker- 
chicf more probably. The use of this 
to keep the jaw of the dead person 
from falling, is well known. From the 
employment of the words his face was 
bound about, it may be presumed that 
this napkin or kerchief was so bound 
upon the head, as to conceal in whole 
or part the features of the deceased. 
If so, in addition to the impediment to 
free motion caused by the bandages 
around his body, he w r as prevented by 
this handkerchief from seeing distinctly. 
Loose him (from the grave-clothes in 
which he is swathed), and let him go. 
This last clause stands opposed to the 
confinement of the tomb, and the im- 
pediment to free motion resulting from 
the folds in which his limbs were en- 
veloped. The habiliments of the grave 
were to be all removed from him as 
from a living man, and he was to go in 
unrestrained freedom. This command 
of Jesus brings the miracle to a com- 
plete and emphatic close, Lazarus being 



274 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



45 •!" Then many of the Jews 
which came to Mary, y and had 
seen the things which Jesus did, 
believed on him. 

46 But some of them went 
their ways to the Pharisees, and 

y Ch. 2:23; & 10:42; & 12: 11, IS. 



thus shown to have been fully restored 
to his usual vigor and strength. 

45. This miracle was so stupendous 
and palpable to the senses, that many 
of the Jews who came to Mary, believ- 
ed in Jesus as the true Messiah. In 
the absence of any intimation to the 
contrary, we have every reason to sup- 
pose that their faith in him was genu- 
ine and permanent. Came to Mary. 
Why is not Martha's name here given 
with that of her sister ? Quite unsatis- 
factory is the answer that Mary was the 
more gentle, amiable, and popular of 
the two sisters. It is more natural to 
refer this mention of Mary back to v. 
32, where it appears that being over- 
whelmed with grief, she drew around 
her as comforters, the entire company 
of Jews who had come to condole with 
her and her sister Martha (see v. 19); 
and that when she went forth (v. 31), 
so solicitous were they in regard to 
the effect of her excessive grief, that 
they rose up and followed her. Hence 
they are quite naturally introduced to 
us, as those who were in sympathiz- 
ing attendance principally upon Mary. 
Those Jews were mostly from Jerusa- 
lem, and hostile to Jesus, and this ren- 
ders their unexpected meeting with 
him, and the conversion of some of 
them to a belief in him, the more 
remarkable and striking. See Ns. on 
vs. 19, 31. 

46. But some of them, i. e. the Jews 
who had not believed. The pronoun 
them, refers back to the word Jews, and 
not to many. The construction is many 
of the Jews — some of the Jews. Olshau- 
sen loses sight of this grammatical ar- 
rangement of the clauses, and strangely 
refers the pronoun them, to those who 
are spoken of in the preceding verse 
as belie ring on Jesus. This would 



told them what things Jesus had 
•done. 

47 2 Then gathered the chief 
priests and the Pharisees a coun- 
cil, and said, a What do we ? for 
this man doeth many miracles. 

z Ps. 2 : 2 ; Mt. 26 : 8 ; Ma. 14 : 1 ; Lu. 22 : 2. 
aCh. 12:19; Ac. 4:16. 

represent them as even more hostile 
than the portion which remained in un- 
belief, for no one can suppose that this 
report was conveyed to the Pharisees 
with good and friendly intent to Jesus. 
Indeed Olshausen brings this forward 
as an argument, that the miracle had 
not taken a very deep hold upon their 
mind. Went their ways; literally, went 
away from Jesus. The antithesis be- 
tween the words believed on him and 
went their way, clearly imparts to the 
latter act hostility to Jesus. They re- 
paired to the Pharisees with all haste, 
not for the purpose of reporting a very 
strange and remarkable occurrence, 
but to apprise them of what was done, 
in order that they might take speedy 
and vigorous measures to check the 
popularity as a religious teacher, which 
this miracle would give Jesus. They 
probably returned to Jerusalem that 
same day, although the time which it 
must have taken Jesus and his disciples 
to come from Bethabara (10 : 40) to 
Bethany, shows that the miracle must 
have been performed at or near its 
close. By the term Pharisees, is meant 
here the Sanhedrim, which was com- 
posed mostly of that sect. What things, 
&c. Reference is had to the miracle 
and all its attending circumstances. 

47 — 54. The counsel of Caiaphas 
against Jesus. He retires from 
Judea. Bethany. The Evangelist now 
relates the consequences of this great 
miracle. The Sanhedrim are forthwith 
convened, and after much consultation, 
acting upon the advice of Caiaphas, 
they resolve to take immediate mea- 
sures to put him to death. Thus, as has 
been remarked, the miracle of the rais- 
ing of Lazarus, so grand and benevo- 
lent, is made by these wicked rulers 
the occasion of more rancorous hatred 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XI. 



275 



48 If we let him thus alone, 
all men will believe on him ; and 

to Jesus, and more determined efforts 
to rid themselves of his presence. 

47. Then (at the report of these Jews 
who had returned from Bethany) 
gathered the chief priests, &c. They 
met in solemn council as the Sanhe- 
drim. What do tee ? maybe taken as 
self-censure. ' What are we doing, at 
a time when we ought to be on the 
alert? Nothing at all.' Some may 
prefer, however, to regard the inquiry 
as relating to what was proper to be 
done in this new and alarming emer- 
gency. For this man, kc. An ellipsis 
is here implied : (we ought to bestir 
ourselves) for this man doeth main/ 
miracles. They do not seem in the 
present instance, to doubt the miracu- 
lous power of Jesus. But this seems 
not in the least to have convinced them 
of his Messiahship, which Webster and 
Wilkinson, attribute to two reasons: 
(1) their erroneous and carnal views of 
the Messiah ; (2) their belief in the 
agency of demons. The former prompt- 
ed them to unbelief; the latter furnish- 
ed them with just such an excuse as 
they wanted. 

4S. If tee let him thus (as we have 
been doing) alone, &c. They had al- 
ready had recourse to every species of 
opposition, save actual violence, and 
this they had several times attempted. 
Compare 8 : 59 ; 10 : 31. All men will 
believe on him. The hyperbole is well 
suited to the excited state of their 
mind, in view of the wonderful report 
which had been made to them (v. 46). 
The fact that some whom they had 
numbered among the staunch enemies 
of Jesus, had changed their views 
(v. 45), in consequence of the recent 
miracle, was to them a precursor of 
what would be true of thousands, when 
it should be reported through the land. 
Unless speedy measures were adopted 
to rid themselves of Jesus, his increas- 
ing popularity would put it wholly out 
of their power to do him any harm. 
In the words all men (i. e. of Judea), 
they of course exclude themselves, for 
they had already made up their minds, 



the Romans shall come and take 
away both our place and nation. 

that no amount of evidence should in- 
duce them to acknowledge the divine 
mission of Jesus. The Romans shall 
come, &c. Expositors are divided as to 
whether this should be regarded as a 
real or hypocritical apprehension of in- 
creased political calamities, resulting 
from the public acknowledgment of 
Jesus as the Messiah. I am inclined 
to view it in the light of an honestly 
expressed fear, that Jesus would direct- 
ly or indirectly foment a rebellion 
against the Romans, which would re- 
sult in the downfall of the nation. All 
the false Christs who arose in those 
days, held out the promise of disen- 
thralment from the Roman yoke, and 
drew men after them in hope of politi- 
cal liberty. These rebellions had serv- 
ed no other purpose, than to make the 
Romans more vigilant and exacting. 
But while this fear of Roman oppres- 
sion would have been well-grounded, 
had Jesus been of the number of these 
false Christs ; yet standing aloof as he 
had ever done from every thing polit- 
ical, and scrupulously careful to avoid 
awakening the jealousy of the civil 
rulers, they should have learned before 
this, that he was a far different person 
from those vain and braggart impos- 
tors, who had raised the standard of 
rebellion under the falsely assumed title 
of Messiah. If to this proof, drawn from 
the character and bearing of Jesus as 
he moved among the people, there be 
added the wondrous miracles which he 
had so publicly and in such numbers 
performed, every excuse is taken away 
for these foolish, and in this sense hypo- 
critical fears, that Jesus would aim at a 
political revolution, and thus bring in- 
creased woes upon his country, if not 
wholly effect its downfall. But the very 
thing which they feared, or pretended to 
fear, from the acknowledgment of Jesus 
as their Messiah, happened to them 
for the sole reason that they rejected 
him. Jerusalem after a siege of unparal- 
leled horrors was taken and utterly de- 
stroyed by the Romans ; and the nation 
ever since has been scattered upon the 



276 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



49 And one of them, named 
h Caiaphas, being the high priest 
that same year, said unto them, 
Ye know nothing at all, 

&Lu. 3:2: ch. 18: 14: Ac. 4: 6. 



face of the earth — a standing monument 
of God's righteous displeasure at their 
rejection and crucifixion of Him who 
came to them as to his own (1:11) with 
the proffer of salvation by belief in His 
name. Our place is referred by some 
expositors to the country at large ; by 
others, to Jerusalem. Alford takes it 
in the sense of, our local habitation, our 
national existence. But is not this im- 
plied in the following word nation ? It 
seems to me that reference is had in 
this expression, to the holy temple, the 
chief seat of Pharisaic power ; as St. 
Peter's Church at Rome is now the 
great seat, centre, and support of the 
Romish hierarchy. In this sense of 
vantage ground or strong hold, is the 
word place, frequently employed by the 
Roman writers. See Cic. Orat. Cat. II. 
It is no valid argument against this in- 
terpretation, that the epithet holy, is not 
attached to the word place. The form 
of expression would undoubtedly have 
been our holy place or house, had it 
been used Avith primary reference to 
the temple ; but not so, when as here it 
is employed in the sense of a place of se- 
curity, a scat of strength, the reference 
to the temple being purposely made in- 
direct. 

49, 50. And one of them, &c. The 
terms in which Caiaphas is referred to, 
would seem to indicate that he sat as 
one of the ordinary members, and not 
as president of the council. Webster 
and Wilkinson cite Acts 23 : 2-5, in 
proof that the high priest did not, as a 
matter of course, take his seat as presi- 
dent of the Sanhedrim. Stier inter- 
prets the passage of the spirit of Caia- 
phas, which was that of one of them 
in his bitter hostility to Jesus. The 
expression may be intended to indicate 
that Caiaphas, instead of taking no part 
in the discussion as the presiding officer, 
entered freely into the debate, and 
gave the advice here recorded. Ye 



50 c Nor consider that it is ex- 
pedient for us, that one man 
should die for the people, and 
that the whole nation perish not. 

cCh. 18:14. 

know nothing at all. Caiaphas in lan- 
guage of great severity charges the 
council with ignorance and stupidity, in 
not hitting upon the true course to 
pursue in this exigency. It was a vir- 
tual repetition of the question, what do 
we ? in v. 47 ; but it prepared the way 
for the bold plan which he was about 
to propose, namely, to decree the death 
of Jesus. Nor consider. The verb im- 
plies deep reflection, and imparts to the 
passage this sense, nor consider (as the 
result of the wisest and best formed 
plan) that it is expedient for zts, i. e. is 
conducive to our best interests. That 
one man, &c. This one man was Jesus, 
whose life was artfully put in the bal- 
ance against the political welfare and 
existence of the whole nation, supposed 
to be jeoparded (v. 48) by his increas- 
ing popularity with the people. Thus 
against every principle of justice, did 
the high priest of the Jewish nation 
counsel the death of Jesus. Shoidd die 
as a malefactor. A violent and not a 
natural death is here obviously referred 
to. For the people. It is remarkable 
that Caiaphas should have unwittingly 
employed the very language, in which 
the writers of the New Testament speak 
of our Lord's dying for men. Compare 
Rom. 5 : G-8 ; 14 : 15 ; 2 Cor. 5 : 14, 15 ; 
1 Thess. 5 : 10. He meant nothing 
more than that Jesus should be put to 
death, to avoid the catastrophe which 
would befall the people (see v. 48) if he 
was suffered to live. The word whole, 
is employed to render more emphatic 
the universality of ruin, which would 
come upon the nation if Jesus was not 
put to death, and thus to make the 
contrast stronger and more effective, 
between a whole people and the one man 
to whom Caiaphas had just before re- 
ferred. 

51. Not of himself, i. e. independent 
of the divine purpose of God, who em- 
ployed this wicked priest to utter a 



A. 1). SS.] 



CHAPTER XI. 



277 



51 And this spake he not of 
himself: but being high priest 
that year, he prophesied that Je- 
sus should die for that nation ; 

52 And ^not for that nation 

great truth, in words which embodied 
the most malignant hatred to Jesus, 
and of the true import of which he 
had no conception. " We hare in 
Balaam another instance of a wicked 
man inspired to utter oracles. Caiaphas 
delivered his prophecy unconsciously ; 
Balaam his against his will." Webster 
and "Wilkinson. But although Caiaphas 
thus expressed unwittingly a great and 
glorious truth, yet the malicious intent 
with which he gave utterance to the 
sentiment, and the wickedness of its 
conception in his mind, are not ren- 
dered thereby any the less enormous ; 
and it must ever stand, as one of the 
most cold-blooded and infernal propo- 
sals which was ever recorded upon the 
page of history. But being high priest 
that year. There is some doubt wheth- 
er this participial clause is to be re- 
garded as denoting the cause or occa- 
sion of what follows, in the sense of 
inasmuch as he was high priest, &c. ; or 
as a simple announcement that Caiaphas 
was the high priest on that memorable 
year. The latter is Tholuck's view; 
the former, that of Stier and Olshausen. 
Alford also falls in with this general 
view, adding, however, that the expres- 
sion here employed merely asserts the 
fact that the Spirit made use of him, 
as High Priest, for this purpose. The 
best solution, is that which refers it to 
a popular and universal impression de- 
rived from the use of the Urim and 
Thummim, that the high priest was en- 
dowed with the gift of prophecy ; and 
this utterance of the purpose of God 
in the death of Jesus, was an instance 
of the real possession of that prophetic 
gift by Caiaphas, although he was utter- 
ly unconscious of it. In other words, 
what was attributed to each high priest 
in accordance with a popular delusion, 
was on this remarkable occasion really 
possessed by Caiaphas, so that his pre- 
diction had all the priestly authority, 



only, e but that also he should 
gather together in one the chil- 
dren of God that were scattered 
abroad. 

c/Is. 49:6; Uo. 2:2. 
e Ch. 10 : 16 ; Ep. 2 : 14, 15, 16, 17. 



which belonged to those high priests 
who in ancient times were consulted by 
the Urim and Thummim. There was 
a propriety in this. Although a bad 
man, yet as the head of the Jewish 
hierarchy, he was the most suitable 
person to utter this great truth, that it 
was for the good of the people, that 
one man should die for them, it being 
true that otherwise they would all per- 
ish. There was a fitness that he who 
entered the holy of holies bearing the 
sins of the people, should virtually con- 
fess that after all the sacrifices and cer- 
emonial observances of the ilosaic ritual, 
the whole nation would perish, unless 
the blood of one man was shed in their 
behalf. He prophesied is opposed to, of 
himself in the preceding member, and 
indicates that he spake under the impulse 
of the Spirit, and like Balaam, was em- 
ployed as a prophet, even though, so far 
as his own consciousness was concerned, 
and in the most unrestricted exercise of 
his own free agency, he was machinat- 
ing evil against our blessed Lord. That 
nation ; literally, the nation. 

52. The prediction of Caiaphas, so 
unwittingly made, but yet divinely or- 
dered of the Spirit, is here declared 
to extend far beyond the Jewish nation, 
even to the whole of God's spiritual 
Israel, for whom it was expedient that 
this one man should die. Not for that 
nation (i. e. the Jews) only. The dis- 
ciples themselves were long in appre- 
hending and acknowledging this great 
truth. They remained in Jerusalem 
preaching Jesus and the resurrection 
to the Jews only, until scattered abroad 
by persecution (Acts 8 : 1, 4), and taught, 
as was Peter, by the Spirit (Acts 10 : 15, 
34, 45), they began to carry the gos- 
pel abroad and offer salvation to the 
Gentiles. But that here denotes pur- 
pose, in order that. The construction 
is somewhat changed, as, from the pre- 
ceding clause, we might have expected 



278 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



53 Then from that day forth 
they took counsel together for to 
put him to death. 

54 Jesus f therefore walked no 
more openly among the Jews ; 

hut for the children of God, &c. The 
reason for this departure from the natu- 
ral construction, was to give prominence 
to the merciful design of this one man, 
which was to gather together the chil- 
dren of God that were scattered abroad 
upon the face of the earth. The verb 
should gather together, is the one from 
which synagogue (i. e. a collecting, a 
gathering) is derived, and indicates the 
spiritual convocations, which should su- 
persede the synagogue worship as con- 
fined to the observance of the Jewish 
ritual. In one ; literally, into one spir- 
itual nation or people. See Tit. 2 : 14. 
This gathering together into one, has 
no reference to any locality. See 4: 
21-24. That were scattered abroad as 
sheep (see Matt. 26 : 31 ; Mark 14 : 
2*7), throughout the Gentile world. 
This is John's interpretation of the true 
and extended meaning of the predic- 
tion of the high priest in v. 50. 

53. The wicked counsel of Caiaphas 
was adopted. The members of the 
Sanhedrim at first may have been some- 
what startled at its boldness and cold- 
blooded cruelty ; strong expostulations 
were doubtless made by Nicodemus, 
Joseph of Arimathea, and Gamaliel, if 
these members of the council were 
present ; but neither compunctions of 
conscience nor the opposition of good 
men were of any avail, for then (i. e. 
in consequence of this advice of Caia- 
phas) they took counsel (literally, con- 
sidled together) to put him to death. 
But, as we shall see in the sequel, al- 
though they were so united, deter- 
mined, and crafty, they were unable to 
accomplish their purpose, without re- 
sorting to false charges ; and when 
these were found by the Roman gover- 
nor to be wholly destitute of proof, they 
threw aside all disguise of their bloody 
intentions, and shouted with the infuri- 
ated rabble who did their bidding, 
crucify him, crucify him. 



but went thence unto a country 
near to the wilderness, into a city 
called 9 Ephraim, and there con- 
tinued with his disciples. 

/Ch.4:l,3;&7:l. g See 2 Cb. 13 : 19. 

54. Therefore, in consequence of 
their deliberate purpose to put him to 
death. This our Lord perceived by 
some new attempt of theirs upon his 
life ; or, as is more probable, from his 
omniscience (see 2 : 34 ; Matt. 12 : 25 ; 
Luke 6 : 8). Walked, i. e. went about, 
remained. See 7 : 1 ; 11:54; Mark 
12:38. No more. No longer. Open- 
ly ; literally, with free spokenness, bold- 
ness ; and hence with open freedom, in 
reference not only to the exercise of 
speech, but to one's personal presence. 
Thence refers to Jerusalem and its im- 
mediate vicinity. It is not probable 
that our Lord visited Jerusalem on the 
occasion referred to in this chapter, 
but Avithdrew from Bethany, to a country 
(or region) near the wilderness of Judah 
(see N. on Matt. 3:1). Called Ephraim. 
Dr. Kobinson identifies this with the 
Ephraim or Ephrou of 2 Chron. 13 : 
19, and also of Eusebius and Jerome, 
nearly twenty Roman miles north of 
Jerusalem. This same Biblical geo- 
grapher conjectures that it may be iden- 
tical with Ophrah of Benjamin (Josh. 
18:23). By withdrawing to this re- 
tired place, instead of returning to 
Bethabara, our Lord seems to have 
baffled the immediate efforts of his ene- 
mies to get him into their immediate 
possession. And there continued, &c. 
From this town our Lord subsequently 
passed over the Jordan again into 
Perea, whence he returned to Jerusa- 
lem by the way of Jericho. 

55-57. The Jews lay wait for 
Jesus on the approach of the Pas- 
sover. Jerusalem. Between this and 
the preceding verse, that is during our 
Lord's sojourn in Ephraim, and subse- 
quently in Perea, we are to place the 
events recorded in Luke, chaps, xiii- 
xix., and also Matt, chaps, xix., xx ; 
Mark 10 : 1-52. 

55. The Jews' passover. This was 
the fourth and last passover in our 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTEE XI. 



279 



55 A And the Jews' passover 
was nigli at band ; and many 
went out of the country up to 
Jerusalem before the passover, to 
purify themselves. 

56 ' Then sought they for Je- 
sus, and spake among themselves, 
as they stood in the temple, What 

7iCh. 2:13; & 5:1; &6:4 



Lord's ministry. Out of the country, 
i. e. the whole land, as opposed to Je- 
rusalem, and perhaps to the larger 
towns and villages. So we speak of 
the rural districts, in contradistinction 
to the chief cities and towns. To pu- 
rify themselves from the various kinds 
oi" ceremonial defilement, which forbade 
their approach to the paschal feast. 
This purification was not limited in the 
Mosaic ritual to the passover, but was 
a preparatory rite to be observed at 
every one of the solemn festivals. 

56. Then or therefore in consequence 
of the fame of Jesus, especially that 
which resulted from his great miracle 
at Bethany, which could not but have 
been noised through the whole land. 
Sought they ; more literally, were seek- 
ing. Spake among (literally were speak- 
ing') among themselves. It was a mat- 
ter of general conversation, as they 
met one another in the streets of Je- 
rusalem, or the precincts of the temple. 
Their seeking for Jesus showed that they 
either supposed he was in Jerusalem, 
or that he would come up at an early 
day to the feast, in order to ad- 
dress the people as they came together 
in the temple. What think ye, that 
he will not come to the feast? Here 
are two questions, the first of which is 
preliminary or subordinate to the sec- 
ond. ' What think ye ? What is your 
opinion? Do you think that he will 
not come to the feast ?' The negation 
is intensive, that he will by no means 
come. The form of the question 
presupposes an answer in accordance 
with the speaker's own impression, that 
our Lord would certainly come to the 
feast. Some erroneously blend the 
two questions thus : what think ye of 



think ye, that he will not come to 
the feast ? 

57 Now both the chief priests 
and the Pharisees had given a 
commandment, that, if any man 
knew where he were, he should 
shew it, that they might take 
him. 

i Ch. 11 : 7. 

his not having come to the feast ? But 
aside from the fact, that he could hard- 
ly be expected to come up to the fes- 
tival before those persons ceremoni- 
ally unclean, the form of the inter- 
rogation imparts to this verb a future 
instead of a past signification. A dif- 
ferent mood and tense in the original, 
as Webster and Wilkinson well remark, 
would have been required to give the 
verb the sense, that he cometh not, or 
that he has not come. 

57. In this verse, the reason why 
the people had some doubt whether 
Jesus would come up to the feast, is 
given in the command of the Sanhe- 
drim, that no one should conceal from 
them his lodging place. They evi- 
dently thought that this might possibly 
deter him from being present at the 
approaching feast. The word trans- 
lated now, in our common version, is the 
slightly adversative but, having nearly 
the signification of for. In some 
MSS. there is found in connection with 
this the conjunction and, which would 
make this verb apparently coordinate 
with the preceding one. But even with 
such a reading in the original, it would 
be logically connected with v. 56, as 
the reason why the people expressed 
their doubts as to whether he would be 
present at the feast. Had given a com- 
mandment. This was doubtless circulat- 
ed among those only who were attached 
to their interests and hostile to Jesus. 
So Webster and Wilkinson. See 7 : 
25, 26. If, however, the command 
was openly promulgated, we find that 
it was disregarded ; for, during the pas- 
sion week, Jesus came and went, and 
no one was found so base as to make 
known his resting place, until on the 



280 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



CHAPTER XII. 

THEN Jesus, six days before 
the passover^ came to Bethany, 



night previous to the sixth day, Judas 
Iscariot, his own traitorous follower, be- 
trayed him to his enemies. That they 
might take him, by night most prob- 
ably, as they really did, when his place 
of nightly resort had been reported to 
them by Judas. 

CHAPTER XII. 

1 — 11. The supper at Bethany. 
Mary anointeth the eeet op Jesus. 
Bethany. See Ns. on Matt. 2G : 6-13 ; 
Mark 14 : 3-9. Luke has omitted all 
mention of this supper. 

1. Then connects the approach of 
Jesus to Jerusalem which is now 
about to be related, with this excite- 
ment in regard to the question, 
whether, in face of such danger, 
he would make his appearance at the 
paschal feast. Hence this verse fol- 
lows in close logical connection with 
that which is recorded in the closing 
verses of the preceding chapter. Six 
days before the passover. On the even- 
ing of Friday, according to the Jewish 
division of the day (i. e. on Thursday 
evening as we reckon), our Lord ate 
the passover. Six days previous to this, 
reckoning Friday as one day, according 
to the Jewish method of computation, 
would bring us to the first day of the 
week, or our Sunday, which clearly 
shows that Jesus spent the preceding 
day (i. e. the Jewish sabbath) at Jericho, 
probably in the house of Zaccheus the 
publican. See N. on Luke 19 : 5. Alford 
makes the day of our Lord's arrival in 
Bethany to have been the Jewish sab- 
bath. But apart from the almost absolute 
certainty to which we are conducted by 
the above reckoning, that six days be- 
fore the passover would fall upon the 
first day of the week, it might be ar- 
gued against Alford's view, that the 
great multitudes who attended Jesus, 
would hardly have been willing to 
travel so long a distance as from 
Jericho to Bethany on the sabbath. 
Alford, to avoid this, remarks that we 



a where Lazarus was which had 
been dead, whom he raised from 
the dead. 

a Cb. 11 : 1, 43. 

know not from what point our Lord 
came, or whether he arrived from Jeri- 
cho at the commencement of the sab- 
bath, that is, at sunset, or a little after, 
on Friday evening. But Luke (19 : 
28) forbids the supposition that Jesus 
came to Bethany from any other place or 
quarter than Jericho ; the spirit and im- 
port of which passage is equally opposed 
to the idea that he tarried two nights and 
a day at Bethany. Stier, Webster and 
Wilkinson, and Tholuck, make our 
Lord's arrival at Bethany to have been 
on the Jew-ish sabbath preceding the 
passover. But their error consists in not 
reckoning in the Friday on which the 
passover was celebrated, as one day. 
This Jewish mode of including the ex- 
tremes, in reckoning the days before 
or after any given event, is the only 
way of reconciling the prediction, " af- 
ter trn-ee days, the Son of man shall 
rise again" (Mark 8 : 31, on which see 
Note), with the actual fact that the 
body of our Lord was in the tomb a 
part only of three full days. By the 
same method of computation, we are 
justified in counting Friday as one of 
these six days, which, as above stated, 
would fix the time of this feast at Beth- 
any on our Sunday or the Jewish first 
day of the week. Wliere Lazarus was, 
&c. The great miracle recorded in the 
preceding chapter, renders it obvious 
why Lazarus is here particularly men- 
tioned (see N. on v. 2). It was his 
w'ondrous restoration to life, more than 
any other act of Jesus, which led the 
Jewish priests and rulers to bend their 
whole efforts to effect his death. It is 
noticeable that in four instances the 
name of Lazarus is mentioned, and, as 
Alford remarks, in a climacteric way, 
"from a mere connecting mention in 
this verse, then nearer connection in 
v. 2, to his being the cause of the Jews 
flocking to Bethany in v. 9, and the 
joint object with Jesus of the enmity 
of the chief priests, in v. 10." Which 
had been dead ; more literally, he who 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XII. 



281 



2 l There they made him a sup- 
per ; and Martha served : but 
Lazarus was one of them that sat 
at the table with him. 

3 Then took c Mary a pound of 

& Mt 20 : C : Ma. 14 : 3. 



had been dead, the words being in ex- 
planatory apposition with Lazarus. 
Two faets arc here asserted : one, that 
Lazarus had actually died ; and a sec- 
ond, that he had afterwards been raised 
from the dead. This shows of how 
great importance, viewed in its relation 
to the subsequent events, this miracle 
was regarded by the Evangelist. 

2. That the supper with which Jesus 
was here entertained, is the same as 
that recorded by Matthew (26 : 6) and 
Mark (1-4 : 3), there can be little doubt. 
The reasons for this are fully given in 
my Note on Matthew, and to that the 
reader is respectfully referred. The 
array of names against this view is quite 
formidable, but a re-examination of the 
subject at the present time, has served 
only to confirm me in the view which I 
have given in the place above cited. 
No violence is done to the text or 
general train of thought, in suppos- 
ing the supper to have taken place 
in the chronological order of events, 
as narrated by Matthew and Mark, 
that is, on the fifth day of the 
week of our Lord's passion. Nothing 
is more natural than that John should 
anticipate the time of the supper, 
through a desire to finish all that he 
had to say of what took place at Be- 
thany, so that the narrative of the 
events of the passion week might not 
be interrupted, by a subsequent account 
of this supper and the incidents con- 
nected with it. His words therefore 
may be thus paraphrased : ' Jesus on 
his journey to Jerusalem from Jericho 
(Luke 19 : 28) came to Bethany, where 
was Lazarus whom he had raised from 
the dead. A supper was given him in 
that same place several days afterward, 
which it may be proper here to relate, 
in order that the train of events, and 
great discourses of Jesus which are 
about to be recorded, may not suffer 



ointment of spikenard, very cost- 
ly, and anointed the feet of Je- 
sus, and wiped his feet with her 
hair : and the house was filled 
with the odour of the ointment. 

cLu. 10:8S, 39: ch. 11:2. 



interruption from a recital of the inci- 
dents of this supper in their proper 
chronological place.' Ilicre they made 
hint a supper. According to Matthew 
and Mark, the entertainment was given 
by Simon the leper. Martha it seems, 
always busy and active, served or as- 
sisted on this occasion, but not as hos- 
tess, or one who supplied the banquet, 
as Webster and Wilkinson think prob- 
able. The families were doubtless on 
intimate terms, if for no other reason 
than their community of obligation to 
Jesus, for his miraculous interposition 
in their behalf. How natural that one 
of these families should entertain their 
benefactor, on the occasion of his visit 
to Bethany ; and that the members of 
the other household should assist on the 
occasion, in order to evince their love 
and gratitude to Jesus. But Lazarus, 
&c. There was a propriety in thus 
numbering Lazarus with the guests, 
for it would have ill comported with 
the solemn scenes "through which he 
had passed, for him to have been en- 
gaged in the labor and bustle of pre- 
paring and serving up the feast. " Si- 
lent, and solemn, and self-involved, we 
may suppose this dead man restored to 
life for a long time afterward ; certain- 
ly so now in the presence of Him who 
raised him ; between the raised Laza- 
rus and the healed leper, the Lord 
probably sits as between two trophies 
of his glory." Stier. Tliat sat, i. e. 
reclined. See N. on Matt. 23 : 6. 

3. Then took Mary, &c. The parti- 
cle rendered then, connects this inci- 
dent with the preceding context, as 
what happened on the occasion of the 
supper. Mary's name, which was omit- 
ted by Matthew and Mark, is here given 
by John, for the twofold reason that the 
family at Bethany had been so specially 
referred to in his account of the mira- 
cle, and also to preserve a consistency 



282 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



4 Then saith one of his disci- 



and balance in the parts of the narra- 
tion, Martha and Lazarus having been 
already mentioned. It is worthy of no- 
tice that Martha and Mary are here in- 
troduced, in perfect keeping with the 
character in which they have hitherto 
been presented to the reader. Martha, 
active, busy, careful ; Mary, thoughtful, 
contemplative, loving ; the former, 
leaving nothing undone to entertain 
Jesus in a manner befitting his worth 
and dignity ; the latter, pouring out, as 
valueless for any other purpose, the 
precious and costly nard upon her 
Saviour's feet, and in the excess of her 
love wiping them with her flowing 
tresses, and we doubt not bedewing 
them also with her tears of love and 
gratitude. Tluntook ; literally, having 
taken, the main emphasis being thrown 
upon the verbs anointed and wiped, in 
regard to which the previous act was 
simply preparatory. A pound. The 
Eoman pound was about 12 ounces 
avoirdupois. The pound, however, va- 
ried in different countries. The three 
Evangelists make particular mention of 
the preciousness of this ointment, and 
John gives the additional circumstance 
of its weight, thus showing the profuse- 
ness of the rich offering. Anointed the 
feet of Jesus. In the other Evangelists, 
it was poured it on his head. Both head 
and feet were anointed, and John, whose 
ardent love for his Master found a 
counterpart in that of Mary, records 
that feature of her pious service, which 
exhibited most strongly her deep and 
superabounding devotion to Jesus. He 
also supplements the effect of this effu- 
sion of the ointment upon his head and 
feet ; the house (not the room only in 
which they reclined at table) was filled 
with the odor of the ointment. The prep- 
osition rendered with, is literally from, 
and the idea is therefore, that the 
house was filled with fragrance from 
the odor of the ointment. Stier thinks 
that John mentions this, with allusion 
to the Song of Solomon, 1:12. 

4. This verse shows that the dis- 
pleasure manifested by the disciples at 



pies, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, 
which should betray him, 

this apparent waste of precious oint- 
ment (see Matt. 26 : 8 ; Mark 14 : 4), 
was incited by the indignant remarks 
of Judas, whose false character was not 
yet suspected by them, and whose 
opinion had weight from the fact here 
stated (v. 6), that he had charge of the 
funds of the company, and felt himself 
in a manner officially entitled to in- 
veigh against the waste or misuse of 
money or any precious commodity. It 
is less wonderful, therefore, than at first 
it would seem to be, that the disciples 
united with him in expressions of indig- 
nation at this apparent waste of precious 
ointment. We see from this circum- 
stance, how pernicious, even upon good 
men, may be the example and influence 
of one, who with apparent charitable 
motive decries the benevolence which 
would freely surrender all for Christ. 
It need hardly be said, however, that 
the opposition of Judas to this act of 
Mary was one of hypocrisy and covet- 
ousness ; that of the other disciples, 
one of mistaken views as to the use to 
which Mary had put this precious nard, 
compared with its appropriation to the 
purposes of benevolence. One of his 
disciples, &c. John is very particular 
to number Judas as one of the disci- 
ples, although he was on the eve of be- 
traying Jesus. He does not seek to 
cover up the disgrace brought upon the 
family of Christ, by having cherished 
so long in its number, this bad man, 
who all the while had been a thief, pur- 
loining money for his own use from the 
funds committed to his charge (see v. 
6). It is thus that the sacred writers 
manifest the truthfulness of their state- 
ments, by the honesty with which they 
relate things, which other writers, 
through motives of family interest or 
national pride, would have sought to 
conceal. This is exemplified in the his- 
tory of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, 
and other Old Testament saints, whose 
failings as well as virtues are faithfully 
and fully narrated. Iscariot. See ]S T . 
on Matt. 10:4. Simon's son. This pa- 
rentage of Judas is repeated in 13 : 2, 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XII. 



283 



5 Why was not this ointment 
sold for three hundred pence, and 
given to the poor ? 

6 This he said, not that he 



but is not found elsewhere in the gos- 
pels. As the word son is supplied, the 
original being simply of Simon, some 
would supply the word brother, as in 
Luke 6:16, Judas of James, \. e. the 
brother of James. It is probable that 
the other Judas had a brother named 
Simon, and I therefore prefer the usual 
method of supplying the ellipsis by the 
word son. The mention of Judas 1 fa- 
ther by John, is to be attributed to the 
marked particularity, with which he re- 
fers to this traitor, as he holds him up 
to the scorn of mankind. Which should 
(or more literally vms about to) betray 
him. At the very time when he so 
hypocritically and indignantly alluded 
to the waste of ointment, he was about 
to perform one of the blackest deeds 
of treachery to be found in the history 
of mankind. Webster and Wilkinson 
refer the introduction of this remark 
by John, to its coincidence with the 
circumstance, that the fact next related 
by Matthew and Mark is the visit of 
Judas to the chief priests, for the pur- 
pose of betraying his Master. But I 
should rather refer it to the revelation 
of character, so strongly marked by the 
antithesis between his saintly regard 
for the wants of the poor, and his dark 
and treacherous purpose to betray his 
Lord, which was even then taking 
shape and strength in his mind. 

5. For three hundred -pence. The 
disciples, according to Mark, enlarge 
upon this valuation of the nard, estimat- 
ing its worth at more than three hun- 
dred ■pence. In Matthew, no definite 
value is affixed to the ointment, the 
expression being, might have been sold 
for much. The high value of the ar- 
ticle, as its rich odor filled the room, 
was, doubtless, referred to in all these 
forms of expression. It will be seen by 
a comparison of John Avith Matthew 
and Mark, that the twofold form of 
the question proposed by the disciples, 
is only one question in the mouth of 



cared for the poor ; but because 
he was a thief, and d had the bag, 
and bare what was put therein. 



d Ch. 13 : 29. 



Judas, its condensed form being well 
suited to the indignation which filled 
his breast at this pious act of Mary. 

6. John, according to his custom, 
interjects this verse, by way of com- 
ment and explanation of this hypocrit- 
ical concern of Judas for the poor. It 
was not that he cared for this class (lit- 
erally, not that there teas any care to 
him for the poor, i. e. that he felt any 
concern for the poor), but because he 
was a thief i. e. was in the habit of pil- 
fering from the bag or money-box, and 
appropriating the common funds to his 
own private use. It is a useless and 
insoluble question, whether John or 
any of the apostles had a suspicion at 
that time of the dishonesty of Judas ; 
or whether this came to light after his 
betrayal of Jesus. The probability is 
in favor of the latter supposition, for 
we can hardly suppose that if his integ- 
rity had been questioned, the disciples 
would have listened to his denunciation 
of what he termed the extravagant 
waste of ointment, and adopted it as 
their own view. Had (in charge) the 
bag ; literally, a tongue-box, reed-case, 
for keeping the reeds or mouth-pieces 
of wind instruments ; but here a box, 
sack, or bag, for money. And bare ; lit- 
erally, used to bear. Some of the an- 
cient expositors, as Origen and Theo- 
phylact, and a few moderns, interpret 
this verb of taking away, in the sense 
of to steal. But this is against the com- 
mon usage of the verb, and was evi- 
dently adopted as giving a stronger 
sense to the passage, and one not so 
tautological as the ordinary significa- 
tion of the verb seemed to be. But 
there is hardly an approximation to 
any tautology in the two verbs. The 
former has reference to the general 
charge and oversight of the funds sub- 
mitted to his keeping ; the latter, to 
his transportation of the box from 
place to place, which furnished him with 
favorable opportunities for his thievish 



284 



7 Then said Jesus, Let her 



propensities. What was put therein 
from the private funds of the disciples 
contributed for the support of the com- 
pany; and also from the bounties of 
those who, like the women of Galilee 
(see Luke 8 : 3), ministered to Jesus 
of their substance. The word trans- 
lated was put, is used of almsgiving 
(see Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4); 
and also of the depositing of money 
with brokers or exchangers (see Matt. 
25 : 21). Hence, nothing definite can 
be drawn from this passage in favor of 
the opinion of some, that our Lord and 
his disciples subsisted solely on elee- 
mosynary contributions. Apart also 
from the meaning of this word, it is 
not likely that a band of men 
composed of such persons as Peter, 
Andrew (see Luke 5 : 3-10), James, 
John (see Matt. 4: 21-22 ; Mark 1:19, 
20), and Levi (see Luke 5 : 29), would 
be under the necessity of depending 
solely for support upon the charities of 
the friends of their Master, at least in 
the earlier days of his ministry and 
while he was in Galilee. 

f I. Then said Jesus to Judas. He 
was particularly addressed as the one, 
in whose heart was a deep-seated cov- 
etousness and selfish disregard for the 
honor of his Lord, to which the other 
disciples, although participants in his 
complaints, were utter strangers. In 
v. 8, the whole company of disciples 
are addressed, Judas being, as it were, 
separated from the rest in this remem- 
brance of the poor, inasmuch as he 
would shortly put an end to his own 
wretched existence, and go to his own 
place ; while the other disciples would 
have full scope and opportunity to give 
indulgence to their benevolent wishes, 
in the life of active usefulness which 
was before them. Let her alone. The 
verb is in the singular, and shows 
clearly that Judas was the person ad- 
dressed. It is quite likely that, in his 
zeal to secure some of this precious oint- 
ment, which in his estimation was thus 
wasted, he attempted to arrest the ac- 
tion of Mary, or interrupted in some 



JOHN. [A. D. 33. 

alone : against the day of my 
burying hath she kept this. 

way her service of love. Our Lord, 
with an emphatic command, which in 
the original is expressed in two dissyl- 
labic words, bids him cease to inter- 
rupt or trouble her, and then — for here 
must come in the plural form of the 
verb let her alone, as recorded in Mark, 
which shows that some of the disciples, 
at least, shared in the rebuke — he pro- 
ceeds graciously and most affectingly 
to signify the use of this anointing, in 
preparing beforehand his body for its 
burial. On the general sense of this 
passage, see Ns. on Matt. 26:12; 
Mark 14 : 8. The order of the verses 
is changed in John, the reference to 
the poor occupying the second place, 
while in Matthew and Mark it precedes 
the purpose assigned for Mary's act. 
The phraseology of the passage is also 
somewhat changed in John, the words 
against the day of my burying hath she 
kept this, taking the place of Matthew's 
she did it for my burial. In regard to the 
tense hath kept, Haab and some others 
take it in the sense of the pluperfect 
had kept. But not to say that there is 
no grammatical license for such a 
change of tense, it would impair the 
meaning of the passage ; for it would 
imply that she had kept the nard for 
her Lord's burial, but had now used it 
for another purpose ; whereas, Jesus 
means to say, l she has kept it, and has 
thus used it now in anticipation of my 
burial which is so near at hand.' The 
difficulty which some find in reconcil- 
ing this keeping of the nard for the 
time of our Lord's burial, when she 
had already poured it out upon his 
head and feet, is only an imaginary 
one ; for of such an act, no one could 
well mistake that it Avas an anointing 
of the body of Jesus by way of antici- 
pation. Mary had virtually kept this 
for the time of his burial, not in the 
way of purpose or intention, for she 
had no presentiment that the death of 
her Lord was so near; but when, in 
after time, she reflected upon her 
Lord's gracious interpretation of her 
act, she must have felt that no words 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XII. 



285 



8 For 'the poor always ye 
have with you; but me ye have 
not always. 

9 H Much people of the Jews 
therefore knew that he was there : 



could better have expressed what she 
would have done, had she imagined his 
death would so soon follow the feast at 
which he was then reclining. This 
much was literally true, that she had 
kept the nard for the purpose of an- 
ointing him ; he declares that the 
event would show, that it had been 
kept for the higher and more solemn 
anointing of his body for the tomb 
which was soon to receive it. In this 
view, the passage is plain and easy of 
interpretation, and harmonizes with the 
parallel passage in Matthew and Mark. 

8. TJie poor ye have always with you, 
&c. The inference is very clear, not 
only from the connection in which these 
words stand, but also from the anti- 
thesis in which the poor — always with 
us and in need of our aid and sym- 
pathy — are here placed with Jesus, 
whose personal presence on earth was 
of short duration, that it is a duty of 
the most sacred obligation to relieve 
their wants, and administer to their ne- 
cessities, under the promptings and 
guidance of true and enlightened Chris- 
tian principle. On the general duty of 
almsgiving, see N. on Matt. 5 : 42. 

9. This verse resumes the narrative 
from v. 1, the account of the supper 
and anointing of our Lord by Mary 
being related, as has been remarked, by 
way of anticipation, it being John's 
apparent object to finish here all which 
he might have occasion to say of the 
family at Bethany, between whom and 
our Lord so intimate a friendship exist- 
ed. 2Iucli people of the Jews, refers to 
those who resided at Jerusalem ; as 
Webster and Wilkinson express it, 
Jerusalem Jews. Alford refers it. to 
the rulers and persons of repute, the 
usual sense in which the term is em- 
ployed by John. But we can hardly 
suppose, that the pride of the chief 
Jews would permit them to go forth to 
Bethany from motives of mere curios- 



and they came not for Jesus' sake 
only, but that they might see 
Lazarus also, ' whom he had raised 
from the dead. 

e Mat. 26:11; Ma. 14 : 7. / Cb. 11 : 43, 44. 

ity ; and the antithesis between this 
and v. 10, seems clearly to indicate 
that those who are here spoken of did 
not belong to the number of chief 
priests and rulers. Knew that he teas 
there at Bethany. This they had learned 
from persons passing to and fro be- 
tween Bethany and the city, who had 
noticed the great multitude which had 
entered Bethany from Jericho (see 
Matt. 20 : 29 ; Mark 10 : 46 ; Luke 18 : 
36), and would not be slow to learn 
that they were in attendance upon 
Jesus. Some of those who accompa- 
nied Jesus from Jericho, doubtless 
proceeded to the city without stopping 
at Bethany. These would report his 
approach to Jerusalem, and give all 
the publicity to his movements which 
the present verse assumes. They came 
not, &c. This twofold object which 
they had in visiting Bethany, is not to 
be attributed to a vain curiosity. They 
had been thrown into a high excite- 
ment by the report of this stupendous 
miracle. They desired to see the 
wonderful person, at whose word the 
grave had been compelled to yield up 
its dead. They wished also to see Laz- 
arus, who had been so marvellously 
recalled to life. It was one design 
of the miracle, to turn the minds of 
men, in this closing stage of our Lord's 
ministry, to him as their Messiah ; and, 
in perfect accordance with this pur- 
pose, the people flocked forth to see 
and hear more of the wonderful trans- 
action. That this visit to Bethany was 
not done with evil intent, but — at least 
in many instances — in the spirit of 
earnest inquiry after truth, is quite 
evident from v. 11, where the numbers 
who went away to Jesus and believed 
on him by reason of Lazarus, is given 
as a reason for a fresh consultation of 
the chief priests as to the best means 
of effecting his death. 

10. The chief priests. These may have 



286 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



10 9 But the chief priests con- 
sulted that they might put Laza- 
rus also to death ; 

11 h Because that by reason of 
him many of the Jews went away, 
and believed on Jesus. 

been of the sect of the Sadducees, 
whose tenets forbid their believing in 
the fact of the resurrection of Lazarus. 
It will readily appear, therefore, that a 
miracle which went so decidedly against 
the principal article of their belief, 
would of itself exasperate them anew 
against Jesus. This, in connection 
with the evidence which met them 
from every quarter, of the rapidly in- 
creasing popularity of Jesus, even with 
the citizens of Jerusalem, strengthened 
their determination to put him to 
death. But in addition to this, they now 
seek, with cold-blooded cruelty, to put 
Lazarus also to death, as being the oc- 
casion of this new and increased acces- 
sion to the numbers of those who be- 
lieved in Jesus. The verb rendered 
consulted, is not to be taken here of a 
resolution adopted in solemn conclave, 
but of a wish, intention, purpose, 
which was formed by the circumstances 
here alluded to. 

11. This verse contains the reason 
why they wished to put Lazarus also 
to death. He was a living witness of 
the mighty power of Jesus, and unless 
he were put out of the way, every 
effort of theirs to disprove the truth of 
the great miracle of which he was the 
subject, would be futile. Those who 
place the supper and the anointing of 
Jesus before our Lord's triumphal en- 
trance into Jerusalem (see N. on v. 2), 
attribute this counsel against Lazarus 
to his public appearance on that occa- 
sion. But it would be an unwarrant- 
able inference from the narrative, to 
suppose that Lazarus secluded himself 
from public observation, except on the 
occasion of this feast. We would 
rather infer, from the important posi- 
tion which this miracle occupied in the 
chain of events here recorded by John, 
that he was seen and conversed with 
by many, who were thus able to satisfy 



12 l On the next day much 
people that were come to the 
feast, when they heard that Jesus 
was coming to Jerusalem, 

CLu. 16:31. ACh. 11:45; v. 18. 
* Mat. 21 : 8 ; Ma. 11:8; Lu. 19 : 35, 36, &c. 

themselves by personal investigation, of 
the truth of the wonderful report re- 
specting him. The Jews went away 
to Bethany to see Lazarus, and learn 
the particulars of his resurrection. The 
verb is erroneously interpreted by some 
fell away, i. e. from the party opposed 
to Jesus. Its simple meaning is to go 
away, withdraw, with the idea of se- 
crecy. This is well suited to express 
their fear of going openly to Bethany, 
lest they should incur thereby the 
hostility of the priests and rulers. And 
believed on Jesus. This was the result 
of their visit to Bethany. They could 
not resist the evidence that a miracle 
had been wrought, far beyond the 
power of man to perform. They went 
forth as inquirers after truth ; they re- 
turned, believers in the Messiahship of 
Jesus. Hence the priests and rulers 
had no means of arresting this defec- 
tion from their ranks, except in the 
death of both Jesus and Lazarus. 

12-19. Christ's triumphal entry 
into Jerusalem. Bethany, Jerusalem. 
Second day of the Week. See Ns. on 
Matthew 21 : 1-11, 14-17 ; Mark 11 : 1 
-11 ; Luke 19 : 29-44. The other 
Evangelists are much fuller and more 
circumstantial, in regard to this public 
entrance of our Lord into Jerusalem 
than is John. The reference to Zech. 
9 : 9, found in Matthew, but omitted by 
Mark and Luke, is given by John, but 
in terms of great brevity, snowing that 
he was no copyist. 

12. On the next day after our Lord's 
arrival at Bethany (see v. 1). This fact 
noticed by John, but omitted by the 
other Evangelists, shows that Jesus had 
spent the preceding night in Bethany. 
Much people. This great multitude 
were those referred to in 11 : 55, who 
had come up to Jerusalem from various 
parts of the country, to make prepara- 
tion for the celebration of the pass- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XII. 



28, 



13 Took branches of palm 
trees, and went forth to meet him. 
and cried, k Hosanna : Blessed is 
the King of Israel that cometh in 
the name of the Lord. 

over. They are not to be confounded 
-with those mentioned in v. 9, who, as 
has been remarked, were citizens of 
Jerusalem. That were come to the feast 
a little before the time of its celebra- 
tion, for the purpose of purification 
from ceremonial uncleanness (see 11 : 
55). When they heard, etc. The 
great excitement into which the city- 
was thrown by the report of the mira- 
cle wrought at Bethany, pervaded also 
the minds of these multitudes from the 
country ; and fully possessed of the 
belief that the Messiah had come, they 
made preparations to go forth with 
branches of palm trees, to meet him 
and accompany him in triumphal pro- 
cession into the city. That some of 
these were actuated by mere impulse, 
which soon spent itself, and left them 
in unbelief and opposition to Jesus, 
there can be no reasonable doubt. But 
equally certain is it that many were 
true believers in the Mcssiahship of 
Jesus, and were of those who rallied 
around him afterward in the temple as 
his stanch and reliable friends, when 
the rage and malice of the priests and 
rulers were exerted to the utmost to 
effect his death. 

13. Took branches; literally, took 
the branches. They carried them in the 
hand, as a symbol of the joyous pur- 
pose for which they went forth from 
the city. See Rev. 1 : 9, where the 
martyrs are represented as carrying 
palm-branches in their hand (as did" the 
victors in the athletic contests of 
Greece and Rome), emblematic of their 
having overcome the world. The pres- 
ence of the article shows that these 
branches, were those from trees which 
grew on the spot; or perhaps reference 
is had to the custom of bearing these 
branches on occasions of public joy 
and triumph. By the word bra-aches, is 
here meant the small and flexible twigs 
of the tree, which, as they hung down, 



14 z And Jesus, when he had 
found a young ass, sat thereon; 
as it is written, 



h Ps. US : 25, 26. 
I Mat. 21 : 7. 



could easily be broken off. These 
twigs consisted of one straight and 
tapering stem, from which on either 
side spring forth long tapering leaves, 
much like our fern. The shape would 
therefore fit them well for the purpose 
of being waved in triumph, or strown 
upon the ground. See Matt. 21:8; 
Mai-k 11:8. Palm trees. John alone 
mentions the kind of branches, thus 
showing that he was not dependent 
upon the other Evangelists for his ac- 
count of this transaction. Went forth 
from the city. IIosa?ma, etc. See Xs. 
on Matt. 21 : 9 ; Mark 11:9. Blessed 
is the King of Israel. Luke has it 
blessed be the King. In the utterance 
of these jubilant acclamations, various 
forms of expression were doubtless 
used, suited to the emotional nature of 
the persons by whom they were utter- 
ed. Some would be wrought up to 
such a state of excitement, as to repeat 
in loud acclamations all the titles which 
prophecy had given to the Messiah; 
others of less ardent temperaments 
would content themselves with less ful- 
ness of expression. It is a foolish at- 
tempt, therefore, to seek to throw dis- 
credit upon these statements of the 
Evangelists, because they do not agree 
in the exact form of words made use 
of on this occasion. 

14. John is very compendious in his 
account of this feature of Christ's pub- 
lic entry, which is given in full detail 
by the other Evangelists. See Matt. 
21 : 1-1 ; Mark 11 : 1-1 ; Luke 19 : 29- 
35. When he had found in the manner 
described by the other Evangelists. 
John evidently presupposes that his 
readers had been made acquainted with 
the particulars of this transaction, and 
hence employs the word found, in a 
very general and compendious sense. 

15. Fear not, daughter of Zion. See 
N". on Matt. 21 : 5. The quotation is 
from Zech. 9 : 9, the sense of the origi- 



288 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



15 w Fear not, daughter of 
Zion : behold, thy King cometh, 
sitting on an ass's colt. 

16 These things ''understood 
not his disciples at the first : ° but 
when Jesus was glorified, p then 
remembered they that these 
things were written of him, and 

m Zee. 9:9. n Lu. IS : 34 



nal rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion, 
being quoted, rather than the exact 
language. Her rejoicing is supposed 
to result from the absence of all fear 
of danger from her enemies, in conse- 
quence of the approach of her victori- 
ous King. Hence fear not conveys 
■well the sense of the original, which re- 
fers to the exultant joy which should 
possess the daughter of Zion, from her 
state of peace and safety under her 
Messianic King. The original denotes 
the effect, rejoice greatly ; the words as 
quoted, the cause of this joy, fear not. 
By perversely overlooking this har- 
mony of sense, and dwelling upon slight 
verbal differences, the enemies of truth 
have sought to cast discredit upon the 
accuracy of this and other similar cita- 
tions in the New from the Old Testa- 
ment. 

16. Tliese things, i. c. these demon- 
strations of joy at the approach of Je- 
sus to the city, including all the circum- 
stances of the triumphal procession, 
such as the strewing the way with palm- 
branches, his riding on an ass, and the 
Hosannas which were shouted by the 
multitude. Understood not his disciples, 
&c. They looked upon this triumphal 
procession as an extraordinary honor 
conferred upon their Master, who had 
hitherto been so opposed and vilified, 
but did not see in it the fulfilment of 
the great Messianic prophecy here cited. 
At the first, i. e. at the time of their 
occurrence. Although this remark of 
the Evangelist has special reference to 
the triumphal approach of Jesus to the 
city, yet it is of general application to 
many events and incidents in his life, 
the full significancy of which was not 
at the time discerned by his disciples. 
See 2 : 22. When Jesus was glorified. 



that they had done these things 
unto him. 

17 The people therefore that 
was with him when he called 
Lazarus out of his grave, and 
raised him from the dead, bare 
record. 



oCh. 7:89. 



pCh. 14:26. 



See N. on 7 : 39. Then remembered 
they, &c. In this they were assisted 
by the Spirit of promise, who was to 
bring to their remembrance the in- 
structions of Jesus, and teach them 
all things necessary to the functions of 
their apostolic office, and the right un- 
derstanding of the word of truth. See 
14 : 26. That these things were written 
of him, i. e. predicted of him in the 
Old Testament Scriptures. T/iat they 
had done these things unto him, i. o. 
had conducted him in triumphal pro- 
cession and with shouts of joy into the 
city, as it had been predicted of him. 

17. This verse exhibits the strength 
of the testimony, on which rested his 
performance of the great miracle to 
which reference is made. That were 
with him, when he raised Lazarus from 
the dead. The reading for when, in 
many MSS. and adopted by Alford and 
Bloomfield, is the conjunction that or be- 
cause, as Alford would render it. If 
this be the true reading, the sentence 
must be constructed so as to read, bare 
record that he called Lazarus, &c. Or 
if Alford's interpretation be the true 
one, because he called Lazarus — bare 
record. It will be observed that the 
general sense is not at all affected by 
these various readings. The sentiment 
is that the people who were eye- 
witnesses of the miracle, attested the 
reality of its performance, and thus 
frustrated the attempts made by our 
Lord's enemies to throw discredit upon 
the whole transaction. The words 
raised him from the dead, are neither 
tautological nor superfluous, but design- 
ed to give full and emphatic emphasis to 
the fact of his actual resurrection, in 
the manner related in 11 : 43, 44. 

18. Alford refers the people in this 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER. XII. 



289 



18 5 For this cause the people 
also met him, for that they heard 
that he had done this miracle. 



g Yer. 11. 



r Ch. 11 : 17, 43. 



Terse, to the same persons mentioned in 
the preceding. But I can hardly adopt 
this view. The persons referred to in 
v. 17, are evidently those who were 
witnesses of the resurrection of Laza- 
rus from the grave, and whose testi- 
mony to the reality of that miracle, 
had much to do with the great excite- 
ment which was now pervading all 
classes of the community. It was in 
consequence of their report of this stu- 
pendous miracle, that the people went 
forth from the city to meet Jesus. In 
the preceding verse the word people, is 
limited by the relative clause that iccre 
icith him, kc % Here the term is indefi- 
nitely used of the great multitudes who 
came forth from the city, to meet the 
extraordinary man whose potent voice 
could thus call the dead from the grave. 
Although the words therefore are the 
same, the sense as well as construction 
requires that they be referred to differ- 
ent persons. That many of those be- 
lieving Jews who witnessed the miracle, 
were of the number who went forth to 
meet Jesus, is almost certain ; but the 
great mass of persons were they who 
were prompted to this act, by the testi- 
mony which those persons bore to 
the great miracle. This verse then 
gives the reason, why the people went 
forth from the city in the manner re- 
lated in v. 13. The previous verse has 
reference to the testimony which pro- 
duced this great excitement. Verses 
17, 18 are therefore supplementary to 
vs. 12-15, serving to explain the cause 
of this outburst of popular enthusiasm, 
and acknowledgment of Jesus as the 
Messiah. 

19. In striking contrast with our 
Lord's increasing reputation with the 
people, is placed the deep concern of 
the Pharisees, at the failure of all their 
plans to take him, or check his grow- 
ing popularity. Tlierefore introduces 
what is here said, as the result of the 
great excitement spoken of in the pre. 
Yol . III.— 13 



19 The Pharisees therefore 
said among themselves, r Perceive 
ye how ye prevail nothing ? be- 
hold, the world is gone after him. 



ceding context. Among themselves, i. 
e. in their secret conclaves. Perceive 
ye not, &c. In the employment of the 
second, instead of the first person do 
we not perceive, reference is doubtless 
had to the blame which they cast one 
upon another for the unsuccessful issue 
of their plans against Jesus. Ye pre- 
vail nothing by the orders which you 
have given to the people. See 11 : 57. 
The verb rendered prevail, literally sig- 
nifies to help, aid, be of use ; and the 
idea is that their plans and efforts had 
thus far been of no avail, to arrest the 
popularity of Jesus, or place him in 
their power. Behold introduces as if 
passing before their eye, the crowds 
which were in attendance upon Jesus. 
The v:orld, or as we say, everybody, a 
form of hyperbole common in almost all 
languages. This exaggerated language 
is highly characteristic of the great ex- 
citement into which the enemies of Je- 
sus were thrown, by their abortive 
efforts to effect his "death, or even di- 
minish his influence with the common 
people. 

20 — 36. Certain Greeks desire to 
see Jesus. Jerusalem. Fourth day of 
the Week. Between v. 19 and this por- 
tion of John's Gospel, must be placed 
those events related in Matt. XXI. 
12-XXXIII. ; Mark XI. 12-XII. 4-1 ; 
Luke XIX. 45-XXI. 4. Dr. Robinson 
(Harm, of the Gospels) places this inci- 
dent of the Greeks on the fourth day of 
the Passion week, because of what is said 
in v. 36, which implies that Jesus ap- 
peared no more in public as a teacher. 
In common with almost all modern in- 
terpreters and harmonists, he reconciles 
this with vs. 44-50, by regarding that 
as a recapitulation by John of the sum 
and substance of the teaching of Jesus 
which the Jews had rejected, and not 
a sepai-ate and additional discourse of 
our Lord. 

20. The Greeks here spoken of were 
not, as some have supposed, Hellenistic 



290 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



20 ^F And there * were certain 
Greeks among them ' that came 
np to worship at the feast : 

s Ac. 17:4. 
tlKi. 8:41, 42; Ac. 8:27. 

Jews, but Gentile proselytes. That they 
were proselytes of righteousness (see 
N. on Matt. 23 : 15), is quite evident 
from the fact, that they were in the 
habit of coming up to the feast, which 
would less appropriately be said of the 
proselytes of the gate, who were uncir- 
cumcised, and had not taken upon them- 
selves the obligations of the Mosaic 
ritual. Alford thinks they were prose- 
lytes of the gate, but for what reason 
he does not inform us. Such is also 
Bloomfield's opinion, although he goes 
still further, and regards them as Gen- 
tiles, some of whom at least may have 
been drawn hither by motives of curi- 
osity, or through a desire to worship 
not only the gods of their own country, 
but those of any foreign nation into which 
they might come ; while others of them 
came to seek and inquire after the 
true religion, and therefore frequented 
the Jewish synagogues, although they 
made no external profession of religion, 
nor were circumcised. Among them 
that came tip ; literally, of those coming 
up, i. e. who were in the habit of com- 
ing up. This seems to me to be con- 
clusive evidence that the righteous 
proselytes are here referred to, and not 
the proselytes of the gate, much less 
Gentile idolaters drawn to Jerusalem 
by the motives attributed to them by 
Bloomfield. 

21. It has been a matter of much 
conjecture, why those Greeks made ap- 
plication to Philip for an introduction 
to Jesus. As Philip and Andrew were 
from the same city Bethsaida (1 : 44), 
and were the only apostles having 
Grecian names, some have supposed 
that, having been brought up in 
some one of the Hellenistic cities of 
Syria, Asia Minor, or Egypt, they had 
received these Grecian names, and ac- 
quired some knowledge of the Greek 
language. If this were so, it would 
satisfactorily account for their asking 



21 The same came therefore to 
Philip, u which was of Bethsaida 
of Galilee, and desired him, say- 
ing, Sir, we would see Jesus. 

u Cli. 1 : 44. 

this favor of Philip, and his communi- 
cation of it to Andrew, before he re- 
ported it to Jesus. Alford suggests 
that these Greeks may have had friends 
and acquaintances among the Hellen- 
istic Jews; and if they were from 
the neighborhood of Bethsaida, they 
may have been familiar Avith the person 
of Jesus, and thus have sought for 
this private interview. But after all, 
the fact that they preferred their re- 
quest through Philip, a matter in itself 
of no importance, may have been the 
result of some chance circumstance, 
such as his position in tha circle of dis- 
ciples, which made it more easy at that- 
time to accost him than any of the 
rest. That Philip should tell Andrew, 
is undoubtedly to be referred to their 
intimacy of acquaintance, being, as has 
been stated (1 : 44), from the same 
town in Galilee. The same ; literally, 
these. The word therefore, very prob- 
ably refers to their pious observance of 
the feasts at Jerusalem, as a reason why 
those Greeks should wish to have an 
interview with Jesus, concerning whom, 
as an eminent religious teacher and 
miracle-worker, they had doubtless 
heard much on the occasion of their 
present visit to Jerusalem. If how- 
ever they sought Philip, because of 
his supposed acquaintance with the 
Greek language and customs, the word 
therefore, may indicate that as they 
were Greeks, on this account they 
chose Philip as the medium of their re- 
quest to see Jesus. Which was of 
Bethsaida, or more literally and briefly, 
Philip from Bethsaida, &c. Desired. 
The tense of the verb desired, in the 
original, seems to indicate some impor- 
tunity on their part. Perhaps Philip 
manifested at first a reluctance to ac- 
cede to their request (see N. on v. 22), 
which was overcome only by their ur- 
gent solicitation to be introduced to 
Jesus. Saying, i. e. making their re- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XII. 



291 



22 Philip cometh and telleth 
Andrew : and again Andrew and 
Philip tell Jesus. 

23 And Jesus answered them, 



quest in these terms. We would see ; 
literally, teish to see. This verb does 
not here refer to mere external vision, 
but to an interview with Jesus, a use 
which the word has in common par- 
lance with us. 

22. The request of these Greeks was 
so unusual, that before reporting it to 
Jesus, Philip, as was very natural, com- 
municates it to his fellow townsman, 
Andrew. The verb cometh, would seem 
to imply that Andrew stood some dis- 
tance in the company from Philip, and 
that he took some pains therefore to 
share with him the responsibility, or as 
some might think, the pleasure of bear- 
ing this request to Jesus. And again, 
in inference to its being first reported 
to Andrew. Tell Jesus. The circum- 
stance that such a request was made, 
and the remark of Jesus to which it 
gave occasion, are the only things of 
which we are here informed. We are 
left therefore in uncertainty whether 
the wish of these strangers was grati- 
fied ; but when we take into considera- 
tion how accessible our Lord was 
to all who approached him with sin- 
cere and worthy motives, we cannot 
doubt that they obtained the desired 
interview, and that they went away 
from him, firm believers in his divine 
mission — the first fruits of that abun- 
dant harvest of souls which in subse- 
quent times was to be gathered from 
the Gentiles, by the labors of his apos- 
tles and those who should come after 
them as ministers of his word. 

23. These words were probably 
spoken in the hearing of the Greeks., 
and however sealed up from them at 
this time may have been their deep 
spiritual signification, yet after his 
death and resurrection, we cannot 
doubt that to them also as to the dis- 
ciples, divine illumination was vouch- 
safed, so that they comprehended the 
full meaning of this great utterance. 
The hour (i. e. the time appointed for 



saying, x The hour is come, that 
the Son of man should be glori- 
fied. 



a Ch. 13: 32: & 17:1. 



this purpose) is come, that the Son of 
man, &c. The request of these Gentiles 
was so manifest a precursor of the great 
numbers, who should come to him as 
the Saviour of men, from the Gentile 
world, that our Lord breaks forth in 
triumphal exclamation, as though his 
future glorification in the universal 
spread of the gospel were already 
come. This does not in the least ex- 
clude his death, resurrection, and ascen- 
sion, which were so near at hand, and 
which were so intimately related to the 
promulgation of the gospel throughout 
the world. Indeed the glorification of 
our Lord, so often referred to by John, 
is a very compendious term, embracing 
the whole economy of redemption, in 
which Christ is revealed as Saviour, In- 
tercessor, and final Judge of all man- 
kind. His glorification began with his 
crucifixion, and runs on through the 
future ages, until the time Avhen he 
shall have finished the work assigned 
him, and shall give up the Mediatorial 
kingdom to God even the Father 
(1 Cor. 15 : 24-28). The readjustment 
of things which sin has so fatally dis- 
turbed having then fully taken place, 
and order and harmony restored to 
the moral universe, the governmental 
economy of God will be resumed in its 
primeval form and mode of dispensa- 
tion, and " God will be all in all." The 
presence of these Greeks was a sign 
that this great renovation and restitu- 
tion of things (Acts 3:21) was about 
to commence. "These men from the 
West at the end of the Life of Jesus, 
set forth the same as the Magi from the 
East at its beginning ; — but they came 
to the Cross of the King, as those to 
his cradle." Stier. 

24. The general sentiment of this 
verse is, that as a grain of corn must 
be deposited in the earth, and dissolve 
and perish in the process of germina- 
tion, or else remain alone and un- 
productive, so it would be with Jesus. 



292 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



24 Verily, verily, I say unto 
you, v Except a corn of wheat fall 
into the ground and die, it abideth 
alone : but if it die 5 it bringeth 
forth much fruit. 

y 1 Co. 15 : 36. 



He would be obliged to undergo physi- 
cal death and burial in the grave, be- 
fore the glorious consummation referred 
to in v. 23, could be reached. The 
words verily, verily, so connect this 
verse with the preceding one, as to 
show clearly that in this similitude Je- 
sus had reference to himself. A corn, 
(i. e. grain) of wheat. See 1 Cor. 15 : 
37. Stier remarks that our Lord, not 
without meaning specifies wheat, the 
noblest grain of Palestine. It has been 
remarked that the corn of wheat more 
than other kinds of seed, comes to utter 
putrefaction in its pushing forth of the 
germ. The wordsfall into the ground* 
have the participial form in the original, 
falling (i. e. being cast) into the earth. 
This imparts emphasis to the verb die, 
and indicates that the death of Jesus is 
absolutely essential to his glorification 
in the spiritual increase and ingather- 
ing of Gentile converts. It abideth 
alone, 3. e. it remains a single seed 
without increase. But if it die, in ac- 
cordance with the law of germination 
when seed is sown in the ground. It 
bringeth, &c. The seed in one sense is 
dead, and yet it is virtually in the new 
plant, reproducing by its secret and 
potent influence other grains of the 
same identical nature with itself. Much 
fruit. See in the parable of the sower 
(Matt. 13 : 8), where some seeds are 
said to bring forth a hundredfold. The 
increase of wheat has sometimes been 
known to reach two hundred grains 
from a single one. 

25. Our Lord here teaches that all 
his followers, who would share in the 
glory "and blessedness which the Son of 
man was soon to reach through death, 
must also be participants in his self- 
renunciation, sufferings, and death. 
See Rom. 6 : 4; 8 : 11 ; 2 Cor. 4:10; 2 
Tim. 2 : 12. He that loveth his life, so 
as to prefer his. own ease a,nd grati- 



25 *He that loveth his life 
shall lose it ; and he that hateth 
his life in this world shall keep it 
unto life eternal. 

z Mat. 10 : 29 ; & 16 : 25 ; Ma. 8 : 85 ; Lu. 9 : 24 : 
& IT : 33. 

fication, to the self-denial and suffering 
which he maybe called upon to endure 
in the service of Christ. The senti- 
ment is not unlike that expressed in 
Matt. 10:39; 16:25; Mark 8 : 25 ; 
Luke 9 : 24, on which passages see 
Notes. Shall lose it, in the highest 
sense of happiness and eternal well- 
being. The converse of this is ex- 
pressed in the following words, he that 
hateth his life. The reader needs 
hardly to be informed, that this is to 
be taken not of absolute hatred, but an 
undervaluing of life, when it is placed 
in a balance with the interests of the 
immortal soul. The import of this 
mark of true discipleship was well un- 
derstood by the early Christians, when 
a profession of Christ was attended 
with such fearful persecution. To a 
certain extent it is a criterion which 
may be applied in every age. Self-de- 
nial and a readiness to sacrifice all 
things to the cause and service of 
Christ, are demanded now of every be- 
liever, the same as when these words 
were pronounced by our Lord. In this 
world, belongs in sense to hateth, the 
difficulty of such self-abnegation and 
hatred as are here required, being en- 
hanced by the fact, that they are to be 
practised in a world, the interests of 
which so powerfully attract the affec- 
tions of the soul. These same words 
are to be mentally supplied with the 
verb loveth, in the preceding clause. 
Shall keep is a varied expression for 
shall save, which the strict verbal an- 
tithesis would require. The additional 
words unto life eternal, are expressive 
of the life or happiness of the soul in 
the world to come, and show clearly 
that the words shall lose and shall keep 
in both members, are to be taken in a 
spiritual, and not a temporal or physical 
sense. The word life, in the clauses 
loveth his life and hateth his life, refers 



A. D. 33.] 



25 If any man serve me, let 
him follow me ; and a where I am, 
there shall also m j servant be : 
if any man serve me, him will 
my Father honour. 

aCh. 1-1:3 ;& 17:24; 1 Th. 4:17. 

to physical existence, and not as some 
think to the soul; for such a sense 
would destroy the force of the antithe- 
sis between the life of the body and 
that of the soul, which is evidently 
found in the passage. 

26. If any man serve me, i. e. would 
enter into my service. Let him follow 
me, that is, imitate my example, and 
endure suffering and even death itself, 
to promote that cause for which I am 
about to lay down my life. If these 
words were spoken in the hearing of 
the Greeks (see N. on v. 23), they were 
fully apprised thereby of the terms on 
which they might be enrolled among 
his followers, although not called, as 
were the apostles, to be his immediate 
and personal attendants. Where I am, 
&c. The official labors with which the 
short period that remained of his earth- 
, ly ministry was now crowded, w r ould 
permit him to indulge these Greeks 
with only a brief interview ; but the 
time would come when, if they believed 
on him, they would be granted the 
privilege of being with him, even as 
the servant is present with his master. 
This gracious promise, which seems to 
have been made in reference to the 
Greeks, is however applicable to all 
w r ho have entered the service of Christ. 
They shall all be admitted in due time 
to his presence, and dwell with him 
forever. See 14 : 2. There is a beau- 
tiful correspondence between the words 
follow me, in the preceding member, 
and this promise of attainment to the 
blissful presence of our Lord in his 
glorified state. But this relationship 
between Him who is the Forerunner 
(Heb. 6 : 20), and the disciple who fol- 
lows in His footsteps, takes a wide and 
comprehensive sweep. It implies a 
fellowship in the sufferings (Phil. 3 : 
10) through which lay the path of Jesus 
to his glorified state, in his humility, 



CHAPTER XII. 



293 



27 h Now is my soul troubled ; 
and what shall I say ? Father, 
save me from this hour : K but for 
this cause came I unto this hour. 

I Mat. 2G : 3S, 39 ; Lu. 12 : 50 ; ch. 13 : 21. 
cLu. 22:53; ch. 18:37. 



and self-renunciation, in his earnest 
and unremitted zeal to do his Father's 
work; in short, it comprehends the 
possession of all those virtues and 
graces which shone forth in such unsul- 
lied beauty in the life of Him who is 
our great Exemplar (1 Pet. 2 : 21), as 
well as Redeemer and Advocate. I am, 
"the essential present — in my true 
place, i. e. (17 : 24) in the glory of my 
Father." Alford. If any man serve 
me, &c. These words are repeated 
with increased emphasis, the essential 
unity between the Son and the Father 
being a guarantee that the true follow- 
ers of Jesus shall attain to the glory 
and happiness here promised. Will 
my Father honor in the way just men- 
tioned, that is, by admitting them to the 
place of his presence and love. Thus 
our Lord pledges to his children not 
only his own unchanging love, but also 
that of the Father, with whom he 
dwells in such intimate and essential 
union. 

2*7. The prospect of his sufferings 
and death, thus opened before him, 
filled his soul with distress — a foreshad- 
owing of the more dreadful agony of 
the garden, and of the cross (see Ns. 
on Matt. 27 : 46 ; Mark 15 : 34), which 
awaited him. Now (as the hour of my 
passion draws nigh) is my soul troubled. 
The verb here employed is one strong- 
ly expressive of trouble, alarm, and ap- 
prehension, in view of impending dan- 
ger. Our Lord's soul was thrown into 
a state of perturbation and distress, as 
his dreadful sufferings rose up before 
him ; and in his dismay, he knows not 
what to say, or how he shall pray for 
help and deliverance. What shall I 
say? or more literally, what am I to 
say? 'With what words shall I give 
utterance to the anguish of my soul ? ' 
Father save me, &c. Two modes of in- 
terpretation are adopted in regard to 



294 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



28 Father, glorify thy name. 
d Then came there a voice from 



<ZMt.3:17. 



this clause. The one reads it as an in- 
terrogation : ' Shall I say Father save 
me from this hour ? But for this 
cause," 1 &c. But this is so harsh a con- 
struction and ill suited to the original, 
that almost all the more recent com- 
mentators of any note, regard it as a 
veritable petition, wrung from him in 
the agony of the moment, but imme- 
diately revoked and followed by the 
sublime petition, that the Father should 
glorify his name, at whatever expense 
of suffering on the part of His Son, it 
might be achieved. There is no se- 
rious objection to this view, any more 
than to his repeated prayer in the 
garden, that if it were possible the 
cup might pass from him. It was 
the cry of humanity weighed down and 
overwhelmed with sorrows too great 
for endurance, and yet repressed in its 
very first utterance, and succeeded by a 
petition implying the most entire resig- 
nation to his Father's will. Indeed the 
prayer in the garden, was but the more 
expanded and earnest expression of 
this shrinking back of his humanity 
from the dreadful scene he was to pass 
through, and at the same time his su- 
preme desire to glorify his Father, at 
whatever cost, in achieving the work 
of human redemption. Save me from 
this hour, i. e. spare me the infliction 
which awaits me, as the substitute of the 
sinner. The word hour, both here and 
elsewhere (see Matt. 26 : 45 ; Mark 14 : 
35 ; John 7 : 30 ; 8 : 20 ; 12 : 33 ; 17 : 1), 
is put for the time when he was to suffei\ 
But for this cause ; literally, on. account 
of this, i. e. that I might endure this 
very death for the sins of men, from 
which I now shrink in anguish and dis- 
may. Alford after Stier gives the 
words this sense: " On account of this 
that I might be saved from this hour, 
i. e. the going into and exhausting this 
hour, this cup, is the very appointed 
way of my glorification." According 
to this interpretation, our Lord here 
rectifies his mistake, as it were, in sup- 
posing that there was any other way | 



heaven, saying, I have both glo- 
rified it, and will glorify it again. 



of being saved from the hour, than en- 
tering upon the full measure of suffer- 
ings which awaited him. But this 
seems to me to be somewhat obscure 
and far-fetched. Came I unto this hour, 
i. e. undertook the work of man's re- 
demption. 

28. Father, glorify thy name. So in 
the garden, his prayer each time was 
closed with, not my will but thine be 
done. The Father could be glorified 
only by the glorification of the Son, 
and this was to be accomplished by 
the sufferings and death, from which 
in the anguish of his mind he had 
just before prayed to be delivered. 
Thy name, is a periphrasis for thy- 
self See Ns. on Matt. 6:10; 28:19. 
A voice. There can be no reasonable 
doubt that this voice from heaven, like 
that of the two preceding attestations 
to the divine mission and character of 
Jesus (Matt. 3 : 17 ; 17 : 5), was a dis- 
tinctly articulated utterance, and not 
thunder, as some recent commentators 
would have us suppose. It is no ar- 
gument against this view, that some of 
the people said it thundered. There 
were all classes of persons present, from 
those who believed in his Messiahship, 
to his most bitter and deadly foes. 
That some of this mixed multitude 
should perversely maintain that the 
voice was only a peal of thunder, is not 
at all strange, when we consider how 
slow these opposers were to acknowl- 
edge any genuine miracle to have been 
wrought by Jesus. That it was some- 
thing more than thunder, is attested by 
the manner in which it appeared to 
others, as the voice of an angel or 
some supernatural being conversing 
with him. But Jesus himself puts the 
matter beyond question, by referring to 
it as a voice graciously sent by the Fa- 
ther, to confirm his disciples and follow- 
ers in the belief of his Messiahship, 
which was about to be so severely test- 
ed in the dark and trying hour which 
was at hand. From the fact that no 
reference is made to the opinion of the 



A. D. 33 .] 



CHAPTER XII. 



295 



29 The people therefore that 
stood by, and heard it, said that 
it thundered : others said, An 
angel spake to him. 

BO Jesus answered and said, 



Ch. 11 : 42. 



disciples as to the nature of this voice, 
it is fairly to be inferred that they were 
able to distinguish the words which 
were uttered. / have both glorified it, 
&c. Reference is had to the glorifica- 
tion of the Father in and through the 
Son, the relation between them being 
so intimate and essential, that the glory 
of the one was that also of the other. 
In all 4 the revelations and manifesta- 
tions of the invisible God, made by Je- 
sus Christ, especially in the days of his 
Incarnation, the divine Name had been 
glorified ; and thus it would continue 
to be, in the perfected results of the re- 
demptive economy throughout the ages 
of eternity. Stier well expresses the 
sense of these sublime words, as " cm- 
bracing and expressing the whole eter- 
nal relation of the Father to the Son, 
entering into time and passing be- 
yond it, and every immediate reference 
to this crisis itself (i. e. to the glorifica- 
tion of Jesus only in the present vic- 
tory of his wrestling spirit) must be too 
narrow, for the I have glorified and icill 
glorify it, has a tone which compre- 
hends all the Past and the Future." 

29. The people (or the multitude) that 
stood by, &c. Reference is evidently 
had to a part only of the multitude ; as 
some we are told attributed the strange 
sound to an angelic voice. Yet it is quite 
evident from the construction of the 
verse, that the greater portion of those 
present were of the opinion that it was 
thunder. Spake ; more literally, has 
been speaking, or is speaking. Web- 
ster and Wilkinson think that these 
words were spoken while Jesus was 
silent, as still receiving the answer. 
The reception of this reply to his 
prayer that the Father would glorify 
his name, was doubtless followed by a 
solemn pause ; the intercommunion be- 
tween Him and the Father not admit- 



e This voice came not because of 
me, but for your sakes. 

31 Now is the judgment of this 
world : now shall f the prince of 
this world be cast out. 

/Mat. 12:29; Lu. 10: IS; ch.l4:30; &16:11; 
Ac. 26:18; 2 Co. 4:4; Ep. 2:2; & 6:12. 

ting of an immediate continuation of 
his discourse to the people. This 
would give time and opportunity for 
the expression of the opinions of the 
people, in regard to the nature of this 
supernatural voice. 

30. Jesus puts an end to their doubt 
by plainly declaring it to be a voice ; 
and as it was designed to promote their 
faith and confidence in him as God's 
Son, it may fairly be inferred to have 
been a distinct utterance, understood, 
at least by some who were present. 
Came not because of me, i. e. not simply 
or principally for my sake. Our Lord 
does not here deny that the communi- 
cation from heaven was intended to 
strengthen and encourage him, for the 
great and terrible agony which awaited 
him, and of which he had just experi- 
enced (v. 2*7) a bitter foretaste. The 
negation is a relative one, and equiva- 
lent to, not alone, or not so much because 
of me. The next clause for your sakes 
(or literally because of you), contains 
the principal reason why the voice was 
proclaimed in the hearing of all the 
people. It was intended as a testi- 
mony from the Father in behalf of the 
Son, which would dispel every linger- 
ing doubt in the mind of those who 
believed in him that he was the Mes- 
siah. This was the more necessary, as 
he was soon to enter upon that scene 
of ignominy, suffering, and death, which 
would test to the last degree the faith 
of his disciples and followers in his di- 
vine character and mission. 

31. The effect on the world of this 
glorification of the Father through the 
obedience, sufferings, and death of his 
Son Jesus Christ, passes now in vivid 
reality before our Lord's vision. Now 
is (at hand) the judgment of this world, 
i. e. a severing and discriminating pro- 
cess is to be commenced by the agency 



296 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



32 And I, ' if I be lifted up 

Ch. 3:14, &8:2S. h Ro. 5:18; He. 2: 9. 



of the Spirit (see 16 : 11), which, while 
it convicts the world of sin and expos- 
ure to God's wrath, prepares it for the 
remedial agency of the gospel of Christ. 
To one portion of mankind, the judg- 
ment will be to condemnation and 
death, through their unbelief in Christ ; 
to the other, it will be salvation from 
sin and its effects, by its revelation of 
the lost condition of the soul, and the 
adaptation of the atonement of Christ 
to restore it to the knowledge and fa- 
vor of God. The word rendered judg- 
ment, literally signifies, a crisis, a sepa- 
rating, a dividing, and denotes here that 
decisive moment in the history of man- 
kind when, by the agency of the Holy 
Spirit, the subjugation of the world to 
Jesus Christ was to commence, and the 
elements and agencies of evil were to 
be separated from the kingdom of 
truth, and cast out forever. Some 
make this a wholly condemnatory judg- 
ment, the world referred to being that 
portion of mankind who are incorrigibly 
impenitent and unbelieving, and who 
with their prince are now to be sen- 
tenced and cast forth. Others, on the 
contrary, without any qualification, 
make the judgment to be one of salva- 
tion and justification. This latter view 
is that of Augustine, Cyril, Chrysos- 
tom, and Grotius. But neither of these 
extremes meets the wants of the pas- 
sage. Bengel refers it to a process of 
decision, as to who shall possess this 
world. This is undoubtedly com- 
prised in the work of the Spirit, by 
which a judicial separation of mankind 
was to take place, some being made 
partakers of the grace of God through 
Jesus Christ, others being left to per- 
ish in their sins. But this line of de- 
marcation between the good and the 
bad, is to be regarded as an effect of 
the judgment here spoken of, and not 
the judgment itself, which, in the light 
of 16 : 11, we are to regard as the work 
of the Spirit, in quickening some to 
life, and leaving others through their 
rejection of His strivings with them, in 
a more confirmed state of impenitence 



from the earth, will draw *all 
men unto me. 



and unbelief. TJie prince of this world, 
i. e. Satan. See 14: 30; 16 : 11; 
Eph. 2:2. Some are disposed errone- 
ously to regard this as a personification 
of evil, which, by the agency of truth, 
was to be extirpated from the world. 
Cast out, i. e. his influence and autho- 
rity over mankind are to be destroyed ; 
he is to be dispossessed of his kingdom, 
and effectually prevented from making 
any further inroad upon the order and 
happiness of the moral creation of God. 
This is not to be regarded as a single 
act in some definite period of the 
world's history, but a process which 
shall be in operation, until the final vic- 
tory and expulsion of evil referred to 
in Kev. 20 : 10, 14, shall have been 
achieved. 

32. Our Lord here makes a natural 
transition to the means, by which the 
glorious consummation referred to in 
the preceding verse is to be accom- 
plished. All men are to be drawn to 
the Redeemer. Satan is to be cast 
out of the realm, where he has so 
long reigned almost without a rival. 
But these results are to be effected by 
the lifting np of Jesus on the cross. 
A cruel and ignominious death was to 
be endured by him, before this glorious 
emancipation of mankind from the 
power and dominion of evil could be 
realized. And I. The position of the 
pronoun in the original is very emphat- 
ic. It was that very Jesus of Naza- 
reth who stood before them, without 
earthly power and influence, surrounded 
by the most bitter and malignant ene- 
mies, who was to draw all men to him- 
self, and expel from the world the 
mighty agencies of evil. If I be lifted 
up. As has been above intimated, this 
most unquestionably refers to the ele- 
vation of our Lord upon the cross. 
This is placed beyond a doubt, by the 
interpretation of the words given in 
v. 33, by the Evangelist himself. It 
may not be denied, however, that there 
is a fulness of meaning in this great 
utterance, which gives to it the addi- 
tional idea of an elevation to such a 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XII. 



297 



33 'This he said, signifying 
•what death he should die. 

i Ch. IS : 32. 



glorified state, that all "will be drawn 
with admiration to the personage who 
thus voluntarily placed himself upon a 
cross of shame, suffering, and death, for 
the salvation of men from the power and 
dominion of sin. So Stier : " the falling 
into the earth of the grain of wheat 
(v. 24), is now marvellously at the same 
time an exaltation above the earth, 
and this is symbolically represented by 
the cross. The tree of the curse and of 
death planted in the earth remains not 
withered and dry, but grows up towards 
heaven as the tree of life and blessing." 
With a like fulness of sense, Bloomfield 
interprets the passage not only of 
Christ's crucifixion, but his resurrec- 
tion, ascension, and exaltation to glory. 
It is however around the cross as the 
great central, fact in the economy of 
redemption, that all the offices of 
Christ are to be ranged. His obedi- 
ence to death, even that of the cross, 
lays the foundation for all the remedial 
agencies, by which men are drawn to 
him as the Saviour of the world. Will 
draw, by the attractions of the cross 
through the agency of the Spirit. In 
6 : 44, the Father is said to draw men 
to Christ, the impossibility of coming 
to him in any other way being abso- 
lutely asserted. Here this drawing is 
predicated of the Son himself. How 
are the two statements to be recon- 
ciled ? Alford says that before the glori- 
fication of the Son, this was the work 
of the Father, but after that the Son 
draws to himself. But is there not 
always a co-working of both Father 
and Son in the salvation of men? For 
special reasons, a prominence may be 
given sometimes to the act of the one, 
and sometimes to that of the other, 
but not in such a sense, as to conflict 
with the most harmonious co-agency. 
In 6 : 44, there existed reasons why 
our Lord should declare that no 
man could come unto him except the 
Father drew him (see Note). But 
here the main subject of discourse is | 
Vol. III. — 13* 



34 The people answered him, 
*We have heard out of the law 

£Ps. 89:33,37; & 110:4; Is.9:7; &53:8: 
Ez. 37 : 25 ; Da. 2 : 44; & 7 : 14, 27 ; Mi. 4 : 7. 



our Lord's passion, and its influence in 
rescuing a world from sin and death. 
All men ; literally, all of every nation, 
both Jews and Gentiles. This decla- 
ration is sometimes wrested to teach 
the doctrine of universal salvation. 
The reference, however, is simply and 
solely to the universality of the pro- 
visions of grace through the death of 
Christ, leaving entirely out of view to 
what extent the overtures of the gos- 
pel will be accepted by men. There is 
an evident reference to the Greeks, 
who, in a sort of anticipatory way, 
had already been drawn to Jesus as 
recorded in v. 21. They Avere the first 
fruits of the trophies of his victorious 
grace, which should be gathered in 
from all nations where the gospel was 
preached. Unto me. A rigid con- 
struction would refer this to Christ on 
the cross. But as we have seen, this 
being lifted up, which is a euphemism 
for being elevated upon the cross, 
comprises the state of glorification 
which shall follow the crucifixion of 
Jesus. Hence unto me, refers not to 
Christ while actually suspended on the 
cross, but to the state of dominion and 
glory, to which he was to be raised 
through suffering and death (see v. 
26; 14:2, 3; Phil. 1: 23). 

33. John here explains the language 
of our Lord, as having special reference 
to the mode of his death. The pro- 
noun this, refers to the words, if I be 
lifted tip from the earth. The word 
translated signifying, does not mean an 
open expression, but an obscure inti- 
mation, such as is made in oracles, dark 
sayings, proverbs, and the like. That 
our Lord's words were rightly under- 
stood by the people as referring to 
physical death, is evident from v. 34. 
WJiat death, i. e. what kind of death. 
This does not forbid the more compre- 
hensive meaning which commentators 
are agreed in attaching to the expres- 
sion, if J be lifted up from the earth. 
The primary reference is to the death 



298 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



that Christ abicleth for ever : and 
how sayest thou, The Son of man 
must be lifted up ? who is this 
Son of man ? 

of the cross, but that event is not here 
considered apart from the glorious ex- 
altation of Jesus which was to follow. 
He should die ; literally, was about to 
die. 

34. The people now well understood 
that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, 
and hence they find some difficulty in 
reconciling this declaration which mani- 
festly referred to his death, with what 
the Scriptures said of the eternal con- 
tinuance of Christ. They erroneously 
interpreted the predictions of the per- 
petuity of his kingdom, to the prolong- 
ation of his days on earth, thus losing- 
sight of their spiritual significancy, and 
affixing to them a merely temporal sense. 
We have heard, &c. Copies of the Old 
Testament Scriptures were not usually 
in the possession of private persons. 
Hence the only knowledge which the 
people had of the Scriptures, was de- 
rived from hearing them read in the 
synagogue worship. Out of the law. The 
word law, is here used for the Scrip- 
tures generally. See 10 : 34. Abidelh 
forever, i. e. remaineth on earth forever, 
not being subject to death. Their mis- 
take, as above remarked, grew out of 
their misinterpretation of the predic- 
tions relating to the Kingship of the 
Messiah. If his kingdom was to en- 
dure forever, and if it was an earthly 
kingdom, it followed as an inevitable 
consequence, that he would never be 
subject to death. ' How sayest thou? 
How can you reconcile with this Scrip- 
ture declaration of the perpetuity of 
the Messiah, what you have just said 
about being raised up from the earth, 
which we know to be symbolical of the 
death of the cross ? Who is this Son 
of man? If he is to be lifted up in 
the way stated, he cannot be the Mes- 
siah, whom the Scriptures declare to be 
exempt from death. Tell us then 
whether two personages are intended, 
one of whom is to abide forever, and 
the other to die an ignominious death ; 



35 Then Jesus said unto them, 
Yet a little while l is the light 
with you. m "Walk while ye have 

l Ch. 1 : 9 ; & 8 : 12 ; & 9 : 5 ; ver. 46. 
m Je. 13 : 16 ; Ep. 5 : 8. 

or, at least, remove this apparent con- 
tradiction between your words and the 
Scripture representation of the con- 
tinuance of Christ,' Our Lord did not 
say in express terms, that the Son of 
man was to be lifted up. It was a 
term, however, which he had so fre- 
quently applied to himself, that the 
people recurred to it as his peculiar 
title ; and in their bewilderment in re- 
gard to the apparent conflict between 
the Scripture representation of the Mes- 
siah and the words which he had just 
spoken, they are disposed to think that 
the Son of man may designate a differ- 
ent person from the Messiah, concern- 
ing whose discontinuance on earth the 
Scriptures made no mention. They 
propose therefore the direct inquiry, 
who this Son of man was, who was 
thus to be lifted up. Webster and 
Wilkinson suggest that our Lord may 
have repeated, on this occasion, what 
he had before said to Nicodemus, which, 
however, the Evangelist did not feel it 
necessary here to record. Some ex- 
positors think that this question was 
proposed in a scoffing spirit, but we 
think the passage furnishes no evidence 
of the truth of this. The inquiry 
seems to have been seriously and hon- 
estly proposed, to remove a difficulty 
which had sprung up in their mind, 
when he referred as he did, to his own 
approaching death. That there were 
scoffers present we cannot doubt ; but 
that they gave open expression to their 
jeers and insults, especially while the 
awful voice from the skies (v. 28) was 
yet sounding in their ears, is quite in- 
credible. 

35. Our Lord could not reply in 
categorical terms to their question, 
without revealing wdiat was to be dis- 
closed in the sequel by the events them- 
selves to which reference had been 
made (v. 32). He exhorts them to im- 
prove the light which they already en- 
j joy, and thus make sure of an interest 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XII. 



299 



the light, lest darkness come upon 
you : for " he that walketh in 
darkness knoweth not whither he 
goeth. 

36 While ye have light, be- 

n Ch. 11 : 10 ; Uo. 2 : 11. 



in the Messianic blessings, without 
stumbling at points, which, for the 
present at least, were beyond their 
comprehension. Yet a little while, &c. 
He refers again to his departure from 
earth, the very stumbling-block which 
their question showed to stand in 
the way of their acknowledgment of 
him as Messiah. He not only takes no 
pains to remove it, but even repeats 
in more positive and unambiguous lan- 
guage, the fact that he is soon to leave 
this world. The light. Our Lord had 
so often claimed to be the Light of the 
world (see 1:4; 3:19; 8:12; 9:5), 
that this reference to himself could not 
have been misunderstood. Walk while 
ye have the light, i. e. employ the op- 
portunity you enjoy from my presence 
and instructions, for soon I shall leave 
you, and then if you remain in unbe- 
lief, darkness will come upon you ; liter- 
ally, will overtake or take hold of you. 
Bloomfield says that this verb is often 
used of the coming on of night. The 
word rendered lest, would be better 
translated in order that, the idea being 
made prominent, that the only way to 
avoid a dark and disastrous doom, was 
to employ with zeal, energy, and a 
humble, teachable spirit, the means of 
grace which they enjoyed to so eminent 
a degree from his presence. This was 
designed to be an incitement and en- 
couragement to their faith, and a word 
of warning against their troubling 
themselves with vain attempts to recon- 
cile his declaration concerning his 
death, with the preconceived and erro- 
neous views of the eternal continuance 
of Christ on earth. For he that walk- 
eth, &c. The same result of remaining 
in impenitence and unbelief is here 
given. As the man who undertakes to 
walk about in the darkness of night, 
gropes his way with insecure and uncer- 



lieve in the light, that ye may he 
°the children of light. These 
things spake Jesus, and departed, 
and p did hide himself from them. 

oLu. 16:8: Ep. 5:8; 1 Th. 5:5; 1 Jo. 2:9, 
10, 11. 

p Ch. 8 : 59 ; & 11 : 54. 



tain footsteps ; so when the moral 
light which they now enjoyed should 
be withdrawn from them, they would 
be left to the guidance of their own 
dark and benighted understandings, and 
remain forever in error and unbelief. 
This was emphatically true of the Jew- 
ish nation, who after the crucifixion of 
Jesus, became more and more con- 
firmed in sin and unbelief, until God's 
judgments were poured out upon them, 
and their city and temple were de- 
stroyed by the Romans. 

36. While ye have light, kc. Our 
Lord here passes from the metaphori- 
cal to plain language. This verse is 
therefore not so much the repetition of 
the preceding sentiment, as its explana- 
tion. What was walking in the light, 
is here believing in the light, which 
shows that spiritual light is referred to, 
and not that which is material. The 
clause while ye have the light, is but 
the varied idea contained in the words, 
yet a little while is the light with you, 
of v. 35. In both instances the near 
and final departure of Jesus from the 
world is the prominent idea. While ye 
have the light (which will be for a very 
short season), believe in the light, i. e. 
acknowledge me as your Messiah, and 
obey my words and instructions. That 
ye may be, &c. This denotes the result 
of believing in the Light. The soul is 
opened thereby to the rays of heavenly 
truth. The whole spiritual man is en- 
lightened. The believer thus becomes 
a child of light, that is, one who is 
morally illuminated, by faith in Jesus, 
the Light and Teacher of men. 

These things spake Jesus. Reference 
is had to the conversation which grew 
out of the request of the Greeks to see 
Jesus (v. 21). Departed from the tem- 
ple and city. Did hide himself from 
them. There is no evidence that any 



300 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



37 



IT But though he had done 



so many miracles before them, 
yet they believed not on him : 

38 That the saying of Esaias 
the prophet might be fulfilled, 

violence was offered him on this occa- 
sion in the temple. This refers there- 
fore to the ordinary precaution, which, at 
the close of each of these eventful days, 
he took against being surprised and ap- 
prehended by his enemies. Instead of 
spending the night in the city, he re- 
paired to Bethany or the Mount of 
Olives. John seems to have recorded 
this act of our Lord's withdrawal, be- 
cause his public teaching had now 
come to a close, and emphasis was 
given thereby to his solenm injunction 
in vs. 35, 36, founded upon the fact 
that he was soon to leave them. 

37-50. Reflections upon the un- 
belief of the Jews. Jerusalem. Fourth 
day of the Week. This section has a 
twofold division. Ys. 37-43 are the 
reflections of John upon the unbelief 
of the people. It was so strange and 
astounding, when considered in relation 
to the abundant evidence which he 
gave of his Messiahship, that it could 
be referred only to the blinding and 
hardening process of sin, in times of 
peculiar manifestations of the divine 
truth. Strange however as was this 
unbelief and hardness of heart, it was 
no more than what had been predicted 
in the clearest terms by the prophet 
Esaias (vs. 38-41). But yet this rejec- 
tion of Jesus as the Messiah was by no 
means universal, for many even of the 
chief rulers (v. 42) believed on him, 
although in fear of the deadly opposi- 
tion made against him, they were afraid 
to openly confess his name, lest they 
should surfer excommunication from 
the synagogue. Vs. 44-50 are a kind 
of recapitulation or summary of his 
previous instructions, apparently sug- 
gested to the Evangelist, by what he 
had just recorded of the inveterate un- 
belief of the Jews. It is revealed to us 
in the clearest terms, that the destinies of 
men are to be determined by the simple 
fact of their acceptance or rejection of 



which he spake, q Lord, who hath 
believed our report ? and to whom 
hath the arm of the Lord been 
revealed ? 

2 Is. 53:1; Eo. 10:16. 



Jesus, as the true and only Saviour of 
the world ; or in other words, that faith 
in him will ensure eternal life to the 
believer (v. 46), but that unbelief will 
be followed by the judgment and con- 
demnation of the word of truth at the 
last day (vs. 47, 48.) 

37. In this verse is recorded the 
melancholy result of the miracles and 
teaching of Jesus. He spake as never 
man spake (7:46); his miracles were 
of the most stupendous and benevolent 
character; his life was blameless so as 
to challenge the closest inspection with- 
out the detection of the least sin, and 
yet the people as a body did not believe 
on him. This passage furnishes con- 
clusive evidence that our Lord performed 
many miracles at Jerusalem as well as in 
Galilee, and thus also in the metropolis 
gave full and indubitable evidence of 
his Messiahship. Unlike the custom of 
impostors to avoid the danger of expos- 
ure by concealment /of their pretended 
miracles, our Lord performed his in 
the presence of great multitudes, and 
in all parts of the land, from the most 
northern regions of Galilee to Jerusa- 
lem and its vicinity. No concealment 
whatever was practised. All w r as open 
and public as the sun at noon-day. 
Yet the people rejected him, and veri- 
fied in themselves the awful condition 
of sin and unbelief into which the na- 
tion had lapsed, w T hen Esaias was sent 
at a former period to declare to them 
the message of Jehovah. Before them. 
Reference is had in general to the mira- 
cles, which in the course of his ministry 
he had performed in proof of his di- 
vine mission both in Jerusalem and 
elsewhere. The connection, however, 
refers the declaration especially to those 
wrought at Jerusalem. 

38. That the saying, &c. The cita- 
tion is from Isa. 53: 1, the words cor- 
responding exactly with the LXX, and 
differing but very slightly from the 



A.D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XII. 



301 



original. The words that the saying — 
might be fulfilled, do not mark the pur- 
pose or object, but the result of the 
prophetic message. In other words, 
the unbelief of the Jews did not hap- 
pen because it was foretold ; but it was 
foretold as something which it was 
known by the Spirit of inspiration 
would take place, and which actually 
did take place, precisely as it was fore- 
told. Hence nothing more is here 
meant than that there was a fulfilment 
of this prophecy, in the rejection of 
Jesus by the Jews. This is the only 
view which is scriptural. Men do not 
reject the message of salvation brought 
to them by Jesus or his ministers, be- 
cause they arc compelled thereto, in 
order to fulfil certain predictions or 
declarations of God's word. They re- 
ject the truth because they hate it, and 
in the exercise of this hatred they act 
as free agents. God has vindicated 
himself from this charge of necessitat- 
ing the human mind to sin (see Jer. 7 : 
8-16). But this view is far from im- 
pugning the equally glorious truth, that 
this very hardening of the heart against 
the claims of the gospel, is embraced 
like every thing else, in the divine pur- 
pose and plan ; so that the economical 
arrangement of God's government is 
not in the least disturbed thereby, nor 
the chain of cause and effect, by which 
his great designs are to be fulfilled in 
the creation, preservation, and govern- 
ment of the universe, broken or even 
impaired by the persistence with which 
his enemies remain in a state of rebel- 
lion against his law and government. 
He worketh all things according to the 
counsel of his own will (Eph. 1:11), and 
not an act or event happens which was 
not embraced in his eternal plan and 
purpose. As to what Alford says that 
the Greek particle here translated that, 
has never the eventual sense, one has 
only to turn to such passages as 9 : 2 
(on which see Note), to disprove his 
affirmation. 

A question here arises, whether the 
words in Isaiah are to be considered as 
directly prophetical of the state of 
things here referred to ; or whether, 
the unbelief which followed the procla- 



mation of the divine message by him, 
was so similar to that which attended 
the preaching of Jesus, that in a cer- 
tain sense, it was a prediction of what 
should receive a more emphatic and re- 
markable fulfilment in the Messianic 
times. The latter I conceive to be the 
true sense in which the prediction is to 
be taken. The same result took place 
which characterized the preaching of 
Esaias, and hence that event was predic- 
tive of the one here referred to in the 
ministry of Jesus. See N. on Matt. 1 : 
22. From the confirmed unbelief of the 
nation under the ministry of Esaias, 
there was a kind of moral necessity 
that just such a result would follow the 
preaching of Jesus. I am the more 
confirmed in this view, from the fact 
that the passage was quoted twice by 
Paul; once, in view of the unbelief 
manifested by the Jews at Rome, to 
whom for one whole clay he had been 
expounding and testifying the kingdom 
of God, persuading them concerning 
Jesus out of the law and the prophets 
(Acts 28 : 23-27) ; and once, in his epis- 
tle to the Romans (11 : 8), in proof of 
the judicial blinding of a part of Israel 
not included in the election of grace. 
The question who hath believed our 
report? is put rhetorically for an em- 
phatic declaration, that very few per- 
sons had accredited the message. The 
word rendered report, is literally a 
hearing, and refers here to the message 
respecting the Messiah which had been 
orally communicated to the nation. 
The message of Isaiah, in the chapter 
from which this citation is made, had 
sole reference to the Messiah as suffer- 
ing and dying for the sins of men; and 
hence its application to the unbelief, 
with which the declaration of Jesus in 
regard to his own Messiahship was re- 
ceived, founded as it mainly was upon 
his low condition of life and self-deny- 
ing doctrines, was the more pertinent 
and impressive. Math the arm of the 
Lord been revealed ? i. e. who hath dis- 
cerned the power of God, as displayed 
in and through the Messiah ? Arm is 
here put metaphorically for, poiver in a 
state of activity. 

39. Therefore; literally, on account 



302 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



39 Therefore they could not 
believe, because that Esaias said 
again, 

40 r He hath blinded their eyes, 

rls. 6:9,10;Mt. 13:14. 

of this which had just been said. In 
the preceding quotation, it is implied 
that the nation had become so hardened 
in sin and unbelief, that in view of the 
few who believed in the message of Je- 
sus, he might well say as did Esaias, 
" Lord who hath believed our report." 
It was on account of this confirmed 
unbelief, that in the strong language of 
the passage before us, the Jews were 
pronounced to be unable to believe. 
This must not be considered a physical 
inability, which would take away from 
the act of unbelief all blameworthiness, 
but one which was moral and to the 
highest degree criminal. This shows 
that the judicial blinding and harden- 
ing, spoken of in the following quota- 
tion, is not such as contravenes in the 
least degree with free moral agency, 
but of a kind which makes the sinner's 
guilt, in resisting the offers and means 
of grace by which this hardening pro- 
cess is indirectly effected, much greater 
and more appalling. Because that, &c. 
An additional reason is given for their 
spiritual blindness and insensibility, in 
another citation from Isaiah. Said 
again, i. e. in another portion of his 
prophecy. The quotation which follows 
is from Isa. 6 : 10, and conforms in 
sense, rather than verbally, with the 
original. 

40. In regard to the general exposi- 
tion of the words here cited, see N. on 
Matt. 13 : 15. He hath blinded their 
eyes, is the historical result of what in 
the original prophecy is expressed by 
the imperative, shut their eyes. In like 
manner, the clause and hardened their 
heart, is in the Hebrew, make the heart 
of this people fat, the result being ren- 
dered prominent in the citation of the 
Evangelist. It will be seen also, that 
what Isaiah was commissioned to do, 
is here declared as done by God him- 
self. This is in accordance with the 
common maxim, that what one does by 



and hardened their heart; that 
they should not see with their 
eyes, nor understand with their 
heart, and be converted, and I 
should heal them. 



another's agency, he does himself. 
That; literally, so that, not in order 
that, as Alford contends that the Greek 
particle here employed is always to be 
translated. This would make the di- 
rect and primary object in sending 
Isaiah to the people of Judah, to have 
been the hardening of their heart, and 
rendering them more fatally insensible 
to the divine demand upon their obe- 
dience and love. How could such an 
intention of judicial hardening be pro- 
phetic of the ministry of Jesus, the 
whole aim and object of which was to 
bring the incorrigible Jews to repent- 
ance and faith in him as their Messiah ? 
His tears and lamentation over Jerusa- 
lem (see Matt. 23 : 3*7 ; Luke 13 : 34 ; 
19 : 41, 42), sufficiently attest his strong 
and irrepressible desire that these very 
persons, who in the application of the 
prophecy by the Evangelist, are de- 
clared to have been divinely hardened, 
should all have been brought to re- 
pentance and faith in him. How then 
were they hardened and confirmed in 
unbelief as here stated? Simply and 
naturally by their resistance to the 
truth, so plainly and affectionately 
proffered to them for their acceptance. 
This was what rendered them so guilty 
in the sight of God. They said of his 
Son, whom he sent with a message of 
pardon for all their past rebellion 
and impiety, " we will not have this 
man to reign over us." But is not 
God here said to have blinded their 
eyes and hardened their heart ? Yes. 
But this He did mediately or by the 
instrumentality of the truth, and not 
by a blinding and hardening process di- 
rectly exerted on their heart. This in- 
direct agency of truth when resisted, to 
render the soul insensible to divine 
love, is equally certain and dreadful in 
its results, as though the effect were 
produced by a direct agency upon the 
heart. Nor is the awful condition of 



A, D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XII. 



:03 



41 



These things said Esaias, I when he saw his glory, and spake 

of him. 



a is 



6:1. 



one to whom the gospel becomes a 
savor of death unto death (2 Cor. 2 : 
15), less the. effect of a judicial harden- 
ing and blinding of the soul, than 
though the hardening, darkening pro- 
cess had been an 'immediate infliction 
by God upon the soul itself. Indeed it 
is a more awful descent into the depths 
of depravity, to go down beneath the 
weight of God's superincumbent love, 
resisted in all its heavenly drawings to 
the very last, than though it were ef- 
fected by a direct judgment of the 
Almighty. 

This view of the subject, which is the 
only scriptural one, does not in the 
least interfere with or overlook God's 
eternal plan and purpose. The indura- 
tion of the heart, the blindness of the 
spiritual vision, the deafness to all 
God's calls to repentance, are just as 
much a part of the divine plan, when 
produced by the resistance of the natu- 
ral man to the truth presented for his 
acceptance, as though they were the 
direct infliction of the divine judgment. 
But it does not so resolve itself into 
this great truth, as to conflict with 
man's free agency, or run counter to 
those great passages of Scripture, where 
the Infinite God is represented as ear- 
nestly desiring, that all shall turn unto 
Him and enjoy His favor and protect- 
ing presence. See Ezek. 33:11. In 
view of these considerations, I cannot 
hesitate to take that, in its eventual 
sense, that is, as denoting the result or 
effect of the previous act of blinding 
and hardening which, as has been re- 
marked, was effected by the instrumen- 
tality of truth upon hearts which would 
not yield to its influence, converting 
thereby an agency of love and mercy 
to one of evil. Olshausen well ex- 
presses this increased criminality by re- 
sistance to the truth: "it is the very 
curse appointed by God to rest upon 
the wicked, that wickedness increases 
until at length all susceptibility to that 
which is good is at an end, so that the 
most glorious manifestation of good, 
according to the invariable law of jus- 



tice, instead of conferring blessings, 
brings only condemnation upon those 
who are confirmed in evil." That they 
should not see, &c. This portion of the 
citation is explained in my Note on 
Matt. 13 : 15, to which the reader is re- 
ferred. The clause hear with their ears, 
found in the Hebrew, and also in the 
citation by Matthew (13 : 15), and by 
Paul (Acts 28:26; Rom. 11:8), is 
here omitted. In the last clause, and 
J should heal them, the first person re- 
fers to the prophet, who was the agent 
or instrument by whom God would 
heal his people of their transgressions. 
In the preceding clauses, the third per- 
son refers the act of hardening and 
blinding to God. 

41. This verse explains the time and 
circumstances when the prophecy was 
spoken. When he saw his glory. Al- 
ford after Meyer would translate, be- 
cause he saw, making the vision the oc- 
casion of that prophecy. This he ob- 
tains, however, from a different parti- 
cle from that which is rightly translat- 
ed when, in our common version, and 
is the reading adopted by the best 
commentators. The pronouns his and 
him, refer most unquestionably to Jesus 
Christ, whose glory Isaiah was permit- 
ted to see, and to whom his prophecy 
mostly had reference. This places be- 
yond all question that Jesus Christ, the 
Logos of the New Testament, was the 
Jehovah of Hosts of the Old Testament, 
and therefore the infinite and eternal 
God. Thus does John in this citation 
from Isaiah, produce additional proof 
that the Logos was what he had declared 
Him to be in 1:1, the only and true 
God. The clause and spake of him, 
on the reading of Alford, is to be con- 
nected with the first clause : these 
things said JEsaias — because he saw his 
glory — and spake of him. But this 
seems less natural than the common 
reading and construction. Of him re- 
fers to the Messiah and his times, 
which constituted the burden of Isai- 
ah's prophecy, especially from Chap. 
XLIX. onward to the end. 



304 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



42 Nevertheless among the 
chief rulers also many believed 
on him ; but ' because of the 
Pharisees they did not confess 
him, lest they should be put out 
of the synagogue : 

t Oh. 7:13; & 9:22. 

wCh. 5:54. 

42. The Evangelist now resumes the 
train of thought from v. 37, which had 
been interrupted by his citation from 
Esaias. The unbelief with which the 
preaching and miracles of Jesus had 
been received, was general and univer- 
sal. But notwithstanding this, there 
were many (even) among the chief rul- 
ers tvho believed on him. These were 
Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and 
others of that class. The word many, 
is to be taken in a comparative sense, 
of a considerable number, yet very far 
from embracing the whole mass, or 
even a majority of the rulers and chief 
men. Because of the Pharisees, i. e. 
the leading men who were Pharisees. 
Tliey did not co?ifcss him, i. e. openly 
acknowledge their faith in Jesus as the 
Messiah. Lest they should be put out, 
&c. This refers to excommunication 
from the synagogue, and other privi- 
leges pertaining to Jewish worship. 
See N. on 9 : 22. 

43. For they loved, &c. They were 
influenced by a worldly desire to re- 
tain the esteem of their fellow men, 
and hence made no public profession 
of their faith in Jesus. We can hardly 
doubt, however, that such of them as 
were possessed of genuine faith, waxed 
bold as the crisis of our Lord's passion 
approached, and lifted up their voice 
in opposition to the injustice and ille- 
gality of his condemnation by the San- 
hedrim. An example of increasing 
boldness in face of obloquy and peril, 
was furnished in the conduct of Nico- 
demus and Joseph of Arimathea, who 
in the most public manner took down 
the body of Jesus from the cross, and 
performed for it the rites of burial. 
The reason, however, which is here 
given by John, why these chief rulers 
did not confess Jesus, furnishes melan. 



43 u For they loved the praise 
of men more than the praise of 
God. 

44 *jF Jesus cried and said, x He 
that believeth on me, believeth 
not on me, but on him that sent 
me. 

a; Ma. 9:37:lPe. 1:21. 



choly proof, that some at least were 
destitute of true living faith, and never 
made open expression of attachment to 
his cause. In reference to this remark 
of the Evangelist, compare our Lord's 
words in 5 : 44. 

44-50. As has been remarked, this 
portion of the reflections of the Evan- 
gelist upon the unbelief of the Jews, 
in face of such abundant evidence of 
the Messiahship of Jesus, contains an 
epitome of the instructions given by 
him, previously to his taking a final leave 
of them as recorded in v. 36. The em- 
phatic reference to the unbelief of the 
people, and the citation of the prophe- 
cy of Esaias as being fulfilled in their 
blindness and hardness of heart, seemed 
to render it necessary in John's view 
to recapitulate and expand the warning 
of Jesus against their unbelief, and the 
awful consequences of rejecting him as 
the Messiah. This portion of the sacred 
record seems, therefore, to have been 
added to show that the Jews not only 
had the most indubitable and convinc- 
ing evidence of his Messiahship from 
his miracles, but that he had in the 
strongest and most solemn manner as- 
serted his divine mission, and warned 
them against their unbelief. With this 
view of its position and design, we shall 
have no difficulty in reconciling this 
public teaching of Jesus, with what is 
said in v. 36, that he withdrew and hid 
himself from the Jews. 

44. Jesus cried and said. He spoke 
these words in a loud voice, that all 
might hear the solemn warning which 
he was about to utter. He that believ- 
eth, &c. This declaration is one which 
our Lord frequently made. The essen- 
tial unity of the Father and Son was 
such, that belief in the one was belief 
also in the other. Believeth not on me 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XII. 



305 



45 And '• he that seeth me seeth 
him that sent me. 

46 2 1 am come a light into the 

y Ch. 14 : 9. 

alone or apart from the Father. But 
on him that ^cnt me. Our Lord never 
loses sight of the great fact in which 
his humiliation consisted, that he had 
stooped to the position of a servant, and 
that in his mission to men, he was not 
doing his own will, but that of the Fa- 
ther who had sent him. At the same 
time, he proclaims his unity with the 
Father, by averring that whosoever 
believed in him believed also in the 
Father. This, as Alford well remarks, 
stands in close connection with v. 41, 
in which the Evangelist has said, that 
the glory of Jehovah (Isa. 6 : 1-4) and 
his glory, were the same. 

45. He that seeth me, &c. This is an 
advance on the declaration of the pre- 
ceding verse. Not only was a belief in 
the Son a belief also in the Father who 
sent him, but the sight of the one was 
that also of the other. There is not 
the shadow of doubt that reference is 
had here to actual vision, such as Isaiah 
had been favored with, and such as was 
vouchsafed to all who had seen Jesus 
with the bodily eye. To refer this, with 
Hess and other rationalistic interpret- 
ers, to such a mental contemplation of 
Jesus as will lead men to acknowledge 
the Father, is depriving it of all its per- 
tinency and force, as well as reducing 
it to a far less explicit and exalted tes- 
timony of himself, than he had frequent- 
ly made elsewhere. There is no abate- 
ment in this passage of his claims to su- 
preme divinity, but on the contrary a 
reiteration of that great truth in the 
plainest and most emphatic terms. 

46. Our Lord here professes himself 
to be that light, which in v. 35 he an- 
nounced to be of short continuance on 
earth. I am come a light into the world; 
literally, /, a light, am come, &c. This 
forbids the comparatively weak sense, / 
am come into the world {in order to give) 
light. His prerogative to bestow light 
is based upon the fact that He was 
Light itself. He was the moral Sun of 



world, that whosoever "belie veth 
on me should not abide in dark- 
ness. 

z Ver. 85, 36 ; ch. 3 : 19 ; & S : 12 ; & 9 : 5, 39. 



the universe, from the very time when 
he first called it into existence (see Col. 
1:16; Heb. 1:2). In 1 : 7-10, the 
advent of this Light into the world is 
asserted, and in v. 35, of this chapter, 
its presence among the Jews is declared 
to be of very short continuance. In 
the verse now under consideration, its 
introduction into the world betokening 
its heavenly origin, is referred to. See 
also 8:12; 9:5. Who in face of such 
great declarations in regard to Jesus 
Christ as the Light of the world, can 
maintain with any semblance of truth, 
that our Lord is simply a revealcr of 
light, like the prophets of the Old Tes- 
tament ? That whosoever, &c. This de- 
notes the purpose for which Christ came 
into this world. Should not abide is a 
litotes or negative form of assertion for, 
should come out of. The word abide, 
presupposes that all men are naturally 
in darkness, until brought into the glo- 
rious light and liberty of the gospel of 
Christ. See Col. 1 : 13 ; aiso N. on 
3 : 36. 

4V. In regard to the general senti- 
ment of this verse, see Ns. on 3 : 17 ; 
5 : 45 ; 8 : 15. The hearing and be- 
lieving not, correspond to hearing they 
shall not hear, Matt. 13 : 13, on which 
see Note. The belief here spoken of 
has primary reference to the acknowl- 
edgment of Jesus as the Messiah. It 
how T ever manifestly includes all the doc- 
trines and requisitions of the gospel. 
I judge him not. " I do not assume the 
office of judge, do not pass sentence or 
condemn." Webster and Wilkinson. 
See N. on 8 : 15, 16. The pronoun /, 
is emphatically opposed in the original 
to the word, referred to in the next verse, 
as that w T hich wdll pronounce a con- 
demning judgment upon the unbeliever. 
For I came, &c. The peculiar office 
work of Jesus was to save men, not to 
condemn them. See N. on 3 : 17. 
This declaration does not militate 
against his assumption of the office of 



306 



JOHN". 



[A. D. 33. 



47 And if any man hear my 
words, and believe not, ° I judge 
him not : for *I came not to judge 
the world, but to save the world. 

raCh. 5: 45; & 8: 15, 26. 
&Ch. 3:17. cLu. 10:16. 

final Judge, at the consummation of 
time. The simple idea is, that his office 
work at present is to save men from 
sin and death. Hereafter, as all judg- 
ment has been committed to him, he 
will pronounce the sentence of con- 
demnation upon those who are incorri- 
gibly impenitent. But this was not the 
primary or special object of his advent. 
"He came not to judge the world but 
to save the world." Some have fancied 
that this passage furnishes an incontro- 
vertible argument that all men will 
finally be saved. But such a sense could 
not be affixed to it, without destroying 
all the force and pertinency of the fol- 
lowing declaration, that he who rejects 
Jesus and his words shall be judged, 
even by the very gospel of salvation 
which he has rejected, and which to 
those who receive it is full of peace, 
pardon, and love. In regard to the 
emphatic repetition of the world, in the 
second member, see 1ST. on 9 : 6. 

48. lie that rejecteth me and receiveth 
not my words, is a full and emphatic rep- 
etition of what is expressed in the pre- 
ceding verse by, and believe not. The 
language is exceedingly strong and em- 
phatic. The word translated rejecteth, 
literally signifies to displace, put aside, 
in scorn as a thing of no worth. It has 
primary reference here to the rejection 
of Jesus as the Messiah, but includes 
the rejection of the gracious overtures 
of the gospel, as expressed in the next 
clause, and receiveth not my words. These 
acts of rejection and unbelief, although 
referred to in this place as separate and 
distinct, are yet one in essence, and are 
never found except in close and indis- 
soluble companionship. No one can 
believe in the gospel of Christ, without 
giving full credence to what he has de- 
clared of his divine mission and personal 
dignity ; nor can any one believe in the 
Messiahship of Jesus, without attaching 



48 e He that rejecteth me, and 
receiveth not my words, hath one 
that judgeth him : d the word that 
I have spoken, the same shall 
judge him in the last day. 

d De. 18 : 19 ; Ma. 16 : 16. 

to all the requisitions of his gospel a 
supreme and binding obligation. In 
like manner also, a rejection of Jesus as 
the Son of God, is a rejection of all the 
words which proceeded from his mouth; 
and a rejection of his words and doc- 
trines, is a rejection of him as the Re- 
deemer and Saviour of men. This verse 
therefore establishes in unmistakable 
language, the indissoluble connection 
between an acknowledgment of Jesus 
as the Son of God, and obedience to 
all his commands. See N. on Matt. 7 : 
21, 22. Hath one that judgeth him. A 
judge will not be wanting to pronounce 
sentence of condemnation upon him, 
even though I, as Saviour of men, do 
not thus condemn him. The word that 
1 have spoken, i. e. the gospel, the great 
summary of Christ's words and instruc- 
tions. The same shall judge, &c. The 
personal pronoun in the masculine gen- 
der is here employed, as if thewordwas 
a personal and living he, who should sit 
on the throne of judgment at the last 
day. "That the spoken word itself 
will be the Judge, is a bold and true 
expression, since it is not an empty 
word, and can never be spoken in vain. 
On the one hand, it abides as a judge 
(Heb. 4 : 12) in the memory and con- 
science till the last day (hath one, &c.) ; 
and on the other, it will on that day, 
though only for condemnation, be re- 
produced in the mouth of the rejected 
Saviour, then the Judge." Stier. The 
idea is that the gospel rejected and 
scorned, will rise up as a condemning 
judge at the last day, and thunder 
forth the sentence of condemnation, so 
that there will be, as it were, nothing- 
left for the Judge, but to confirm that 
condemning sentence. It is thus that 
Jesus illustrates and confirms his decla- 
ration in v. 47, that his office is not to 
judge but to save the world. Judgment 
of the most terrific nature will come 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XII. 



307 



cCh. 8:33; &14:10. /De. IS : IS. 



49 For ' I have not spoken of | merit, /- what I should 
myself ; but the Father which what I should speak, 
sent me, he gave me a command- 

upon the impenitent sinner, but it will 
be the condemning sentence of a re- 
jected gospel. 

49. This verse also contains the 
summary of what he had repeated very 
frequently in his public instructions. 
Stier cites 5 : 30 ; 1 : 16, 17, 28, 29 ; 8 : 
26, 28, 38, 55, and what he afterwards 
said to his disciples 14 : 10. For intro- 
duces this verse, as confirmatory of the 
high authority given in the preceding 
verse to the word which Jesus had 
spoken, in that it was to be the virtual 
judge of unbelievers at the last day. 
This word had not been spoken by 
Jesus of himself (literally/row himself), 
that is, of his own origination and apart 
from the will and purpose of the 
Father; but it constituted the very 
commandment which he had received 
from the Father, when he was sent on 
his mission of love into the world. 
Hence his word was the word of God, 
and it was not strange, that the rejec- 
tion of it should be followed by such a 
fearful result. The pronoun /, is em- 
phatic in the original, and in connec- 
tion with of myself is put in strong 
contrast with the Father, in the next 
clause, to whom the words which 
Jesus spoke are declared to be refer- 
able. Commentators have written 
much and learnedly on the distinction 
between should say, and should speak. 
In the original, the former of these 
verbs is in the present tense ; the lat- 
ter, in the future. Some have there- 
fore made them representative of the 
words already spoken by Christ on 
earth, and those which should hereaf- 
ter be spoken by him at the last day. 
But against this view it may be object- 
ed, that both verbs apply alike in their 
connection to the summary of rejected 
words which are to be the ground of 
final condemnation ; and, as Stier re- 
marks, the commandment given to 
Jesus," which covers the ground occu- 
pied by both verbs, is suitable only to 
his state of humiliation. Some refer 
the distinction expressed by the two 



say, 



and 



verbs to his private speaking and pub- 
lic teaching. Thus Bloomfield (with 
whom also "Webster and Wilkinson 
concur) refers shoxddsay, to commands, 
and should speak, to oral instructions. 
But this is altogether conjectural, and 
makes no reference to the distinction 
of tense, which is too important a fea- 
ture to be ignored. Commentators are 
to be found who interpret should say, 
of general, and should speak, of partic- 
ular instructions. But the same objec- 
tion lies against this as the preceding 
interpretation. Is there after all any 
essential difference to be sought in the 
two verbs as used here? Are they not 
intended to emphatically and fully em- 
brace every thing which our Lord had 
taught, the two tenses being employed 
to cover the whole time of his ministry, 
as the different verbs were employed to 
denote all kinds and forms of instruc- 
tion? Such seems to me to be the true 
solution. As these words of the Evan- 
gelist were intended to be a summary or 
recapitulation of what Jesus had spoken 
at different times and occasions in his 
public ministry, the stand-point as- 
signed to him was in the very midst of 
his work, when he had already spoken 
many words, and had much yet to utter. 
This mode of solution, which I have seen 
nowhere else, seems to me to account 
satisfactorily for the use of the future in 
the verb should sp>eak, which was in- 
tended to cover all his future utter- 
ances, as well as those which he had 
already made. The sentiment then is, 
that the commandment which Jesus 
had received from the Father, embraced 
all his words, so that not one of his ut- 
terances could be rejected without in- 
curring condemnation thereby. 

50. The design of this verse is to 
show that the commandment which 
Jesus had received from God, and 
which comprised all his precepts and 
instructions, or in other words, consti- 
tuted the gospel which was to be 
preached to all men down to the end 
of time, had no other end than the sal- 



308 



JOHN. 



[A. D. S3. 



50 And I know that his com- 
mandment is life everlasting : 
•whatsoever. I speak therefore, 
even as the Father said unto 
me, so I speak. 

a Mt. 26 : 2. 

vation of men. Hence he bad not de- 
viated in the least from the words 
which he had been commissioned to 
speak. The inference is left to be 
drawn by his hearers, that if he so 
closely adhered to the instructions of 
the Father, his words were entitled to 
their fullest confidence. I know. See 
3: 11; 5: 32; 7 : 29 ; 8 : 14, 16,-55. 
Our Lord in all these passages refers to 
personal, intuitive knowledge, not to 
that which he has received from divine 
illumination or revelation, like the 
prophets and inspired writers of the 
Old Testament. Is life everlasting. 
See 6:63. Compare also 3: 15; 5: 
24 ; 6 : 40. It is depriving this pas- 
sage of its principal force, to make the 
commandment here spoken of — which, 
as we have seen, is but a compendious 
term for the gospel itself — a means 
merely of eternal salvation. It con- 
tains in itself the germ and principle of 
eternal life, and when received into the 
soul of the believer, results in his ever- 
lasting salvation. The pronoun in 
whatsoever I speak, is emphatic. The 
contrast is being kept up between him 
as one sent of God, and the Father who 
sent him to declare his message. 
therefore. The important bearing of 
this commandment upon the salvation 
of men, was a reason why Jesus had 
proclaimed it in exact conformity with 
the terms in which it had been commu- 
nicated to him. As the Father said 
unto me ; ' expressed to me,' implying 
precise instructions. Webster and Wil- 
kinson. So I speak. The repetition 
of the verb speak, is intended to give 
emphasis to the undeviating accuracy, 
with which our Lord had delivered the 
message which had been given him by 
the Father. The heavenly origin of 
the gospel message, and its exact ac- 
cordance with the expressed will of the 
Father, leave no excuse for unbelief, I 



CHAPTER XIII. 
"VTCTW a before the feast of the 
JLi passover, when Jesus knew 
that b his hour was come that he 
should depart out of this world 



o Ch. 12 : 



17:1,11. 



and render certain beyond the shadow 
of doubt, that he who rejects it, de- 
prives himself of all hope of eternal 
life. Thus the sum total of this com- 
pendium of our. Lord's doctrines and 
instructions, is that the words which he 
had spoken, were life eternal to those 
who received them in faith and love, 
but condemnatory to such as despised 
and rejected them. This declaration 
impresses the seal of divinity upon all 
he had uttered, and constitutes a sub- 
lime and dignified close of his public 
ministry. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

1-20. Jesus washes the feet op his 
disciples. Jerusalem. Evening intro- 
ducing the sixth day of the Week. 
John here records an incident, in which 
our Lord impressively taught his dis- 
ciples the lesson of humility and mu- 
tual love. It is properly supplementary 
to Luke 22 : 24-30, where is related the 
contention that arose among the Twelve, 
which of them should be accounted the 
greatest. John does not speak of the 
contention, because Luke had al- 
ready described it, but his narrative is 
evidently intended to supplement that 
of the other Evangelist. There can be 
no reasonable doubt, that the incident 
here related occurred at the Passover 
meal, just after they had taken their 
reclining places at the table, which 
gave rise to the strife which our Lord's 
symbolical act was designed to rebuke 
(see N. on Luke 22 : 24). 

1. Before the feast, &c. The solu- 
tion of the chronological difficulty to 
which this passage gives rise, has been 
attempted in various ways. The chief 
difficulty consists in the limitation of 
the preposition before. Some refer it 
to all which follows ; others, simply to 
the first verse. The former class of in- 
terpreters arc disposed to regard this 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIII. 



309 



unto the Father, having loved 

deal in which Je^us washed the dis- 
ciples' feet, us one which took place be- 
fore the feast of the passover, and there- 
fore could not have been the passover 
itself. The latter class of expositors, 
who limit the expression before, to the 
first verse, refer it to the unwonted 
strength of love for his disciples which 
as the passover drew nigh, and before 
its celebration, took possession of Je- 
sus' bosom, so that he was led to show 
them the highest marks of his love, 
even to the washing of their feet. But 
neither of these modes of solution 
seems to fully meet the demands of the 
passage. The words before the pass- 
over, cannot, without doing great vio- 
lence to the whole narrative, which 
thenceforth flows on in a very connect- 
ed manner until our Lord and his dis- 
ciples went forth to Gethsernane (18 : 
1), be referred to a meal which took 
place before the passover. Nor can 
such a view be reconciled with the 
synoptic Evangelists, especially with 
Luke, who speaks of the contention 
among the disciples, as taking place at 
the passover meal (22: 15-18, 24-30). 
Unless we adopt the audacious conclu- 
sion, that one or the other of these 
Evangelists was mistaken as to the par- 
ticular meal at which took place this 
contention who should occupy the chief 
reclining places at the table, and the 
reproof and correction which Jesus ad- 
ministered by the act of washing their 
feet — incidents which beyond all ques- 
tion occurred at the same meal — we 
must find some other mode of solving the 
difficulty, than by supposing that John 
refers to another feast than the pass- 
over. Not more satisfactory also is 
the other mode of removing the diffi- 
culty, by supposing that as the passover 
drew nigh, and before its celebration, 
our Lord's heart was overflowing with 
unwonted love, and that he was thus 
prepared to endure the dreadful suffer- 
ings that awaited him. The interjection 
of such a sentiment at the very begin- 
ning of the chapter, followed by such I 
continuity of narration as that of v. 2, | 



his own which were in the world, 
he loved them unto the end. 



is not only in a verbal or syntactical 
view, very harsh and unusual ; but is a 
tame assertion of what is evident in 
every successive stage of our Lord's 
ministry, that he was filled and inspired 
with a holy fervor and zeal, which mani- 
fested itself in the most ardent love for 
his disciples, and an almost impatient 
spirit to achieve the work of their re- 
demption, for which he had come into 
this world. See Luke 12 : 50 ; Mark 
10 : 32. To repeat this sentiment here 
would seem out of place, as well as 
disconnected with what immediately 
follows. I prefer, therefore, that solu- 
tion which regards the feast of the pass- 
over here spoken of, as the feast of un- 
leavened bread, and not a single meal. 
So Dr. Robinson, with his usual good 
judgment and critical acumen, regards 
it as equivalent to the "English, festival- 
eve, and marking the evening before the 
festival proper of seven days' continu- 
ance. See Numb. 2S : 16, 17, " where 
the paschal supper prepared on the 
fourteenth of Nisan and eaten at even- 
ing, is distinguished from the festival, 
which began on the fifteenth and con- 
tinued for seven days." It was at the 
paschal supper, but before the festival 
which properly began the next day, 
that our Lord manifested his love for 
the disciples by washing their feet as 
here related. When Jesus Tcncio ; liter- 
ally, Jesus knowing. The future was all 
open to his view. He knew the dread- 
ful sufferings which awaited him, but 
this did not abate his love to his dis- 
ciples. His hour. This expression which 
occurs so often, is here explained of 
his departure from this world to the 
Father. It is therefore to be regarded 
in all the other instances of its use in 
such a connection, as an euphemism for 
his death. See 7 : 30 ; 8 : 20 ; 12 : 27 ; 
17 : 1. The verb should depart, is well 
suited to denote a return to the bosom 
of the Father, its literal signification 
being to remove or pass from one place 
to another, as from a house to a house, 
or from one section of country to ano- 
ther. Our Lord was not about to de- 



310 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



2 And supper being ended, 
c the devil having now put into 



c Lu. 22 : 3 ; ver. 27. 



part to heaven, as a place in which he 
had never before been. But his depar- 
ture was a removal from one place to 
another of that universe, which his own 
omnific word had called into being, 
and which he as the Omnipresent One, 
was even then essentially filling with 
his presence. As Messiah, God-man, 
he might with perfect accuracy of 
language be spoken of, as departing 
from earth to his original seat of glory 
and bliss in heaven. Having loved 
from the foundation of the world 
(Eph. 1:4, 5, 11). This past love is 
here placed as a reason or ground for 
that perseverance of love, which the 
untold agony of the garden and the 
cross could not impair or diminish in 
the least degree. It was not a new or 
sudden impulse of love under which he 
now acted, but one which from eternity 
had possessed his soul, and the un- 
changing character of which was the 
surest pledge that it would continue to 
the end. His own, is not to be restrict- 
ed to his immediate disciples, but em- 
braces all in every age, who should be- 
lieve on him. Compare 17 : 24. Which 
were in the vjorld, i. e. which belonged 
to the human race. This gives to the 
words his own, a more extended refer- 
ence than to his disciples who were then 
present with him. He loved them. This 
refers not only to the possession of 
love — but to its manifestation. Jesus 
gave indications or tokens of his love 
to the very end, among which was to 
be included the incident about to be 
related. The words having loved his 
■own, &c, refer to the previous manifes- 
tations of his love, such as his advent 
into the world to redeem with his 
blood those whom he here designates 
as his own, and the numberless tokens 
of his love in calling them into the 
kingdom of his grace, and in guarding, 
upholding, and guiding them in the 
way of truth and holiness. Indeed the 
whole economy of redemption is made 
up of the most signal and affecting de- 
velopments of Christ's love for those 



the heart of Judas Iscariot, Si- 
mon's son, to betray him ; 



whom he has chosen, and who have 
come to him by the drawings of the 
Father (see 6 : 44). Unto the end, i. e. 
to the end of his life. " The expres- 
sion is similar to one of not uncommon 
occurrence, he loved them to the death.'''' 
Webster and Wilkinson. 

2. Supper being ended. This is a 
mistranslation, the literal rendering be- 
ing, supper (time) having come ; i. e. sup- 
per having been prepared and served. 
Dr. Eobinson considers the phrase as 
equivalent to during supper. We find 
in Luke 22 : 17, that the cup had alrea- 
dy been passed at least once. From 
this we may infer, that the incident 
here related took place between the 
first and second cups of wine (see N. on 
Matt. 26 : 2), and before they had par- 
taken of the proper meal. TJie devil 
having now put, &c. " This observation 
is introduced to keep before the mind 
the idea, that not only was the time 
come (v. 1) for our Lord's departure, 
but that the agency by which it was 
to be effected had been put in opera- 
tion." Webster and Wilkinson. There 
seems here to be a sort of intended 
contrast between the work of our Lord 
and that of Satan. He was about to 
enter upon his great work of dying 
love. All his words and actions wero 
indicative of the strong and unquench- 
able love, which animated him to the 
endurance of the dreadful sufferings he 
was about to undergo for the redemp- 
tion of man. The devil also in this crisis 
of man's destiny was not idle. His 
plans were all laid, not for good, how- 
ever, but for evil. His agent had been 
selected, and induced by satanic temp- 
tation to take the first step in his trai- 
torous career (see Matt. 26:14-16; 
Mark 14: 10, 11 ; Luke 22: 3-6). The 
sentiment therefore is, that although 
Judas had thus fully determined to be- 
tray him, yet his affection was not 
thereby abated for his disciples, whose 
feet in his condescending love he stoop- 
ed to wash. This reference to the in- 
tention of the betrayer serves to en- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTEE XIII. 



311 



3 Jesus knowing d that the Fa- 
ther had given all things into his 
hands, and e that he was come 
from God, and went to God ; 

tf Mat. 11:27; &2S:1S; ch. 3: 35; & 17:2; 
Ac. 2:36; 1 Co. 15:27; He. 2:8. 

hance the love of Jesus, as manifested 
in the act here related. Having now 
put into the heart, i. e. having now sug- 
gested to Judas the act of betrayal. 
The phrase has here the additional idea 
of incitement to the performance of the 
act spoken of. Simon's son. See 6 : 
VI; 12:4, also v. 26. To betray him 
into the hand of his enemies. 

3. The design of this verse seems to 
be an averment, on the very threshold 
of our Lord's great passion, that he 
was fully and calmly conscious of his 
dignity, as one who had come from 
God, and was about to return to his 
primeval abode of glory, and to whom 
by virtue of the covenant of redemp- 
tion, all things in heaven and on earth 
had been committed. He entered up- 
on the scene of humiliation, suffering, 
and death, not as one who in his weak- 
ness could find no way of averting im- 
pending calamities, but as one " glo- 
rious in his apparel, travelling in the 
greatness of his strength, mighty to 
save." So Alford : "he did what fol- 
lows with the full sense of the glory 
and dignity of his own person." Had 
given, &c. See Matt. 28 : 18 ; Phil. 2 : 
9. The tense of the verb is the perfect 
has given, and not the pluperfect, as 
our English version has it. The act is 
conceived of as one of present comple- 
tion. The decree of investiture had 
been passed in the councils of eternity, 
but the actual bestowment of universal 
dominion took place, not until the Re- 
deemer had evinced his worthiness of 
the trust by his obedience unto death. 
In like manner the verb rendered tvent, 
in the clause went to God, is the present, 
and should have been translated goes 
away or returns. The whole connec- 
tion points to one great present mani- 
festation, which was to embrace in its 
mighty sweep the whole economy of 
redemption — the eternal plan on which 
it was based — the achievement of the 



4 f He riseth from supper, and 
laid aside his garments ; and 
took a towel, and girded himself. 

e Ch. S : 42 ; & 16 : 28. 
/Lu. 22:27; Phi. 2:7,8. 



work on the cross — and its consumma- 
tion in the glorious exaltation of Jesus 
to the right hand of God. That he ivas 
come (more literally came forth) from 
God. He was as fully conscious in this 
hour of his deep humiliation, of his pre- 
existent nature and dignity, as at any 
previous time of his public ministry. 
See 3 : 13 ; 6 : 38, 46, 62 ; 8 : 14. Went 
to God ; literally, is withdrawing to God, 
i. e. has now entered upon that scene 
of suffering and death, which will bring 
his earthly labors to a close, and ena- 
ble him to resume the dignity with the 
Father, which he had temporarily laid 
aside. See Phil. 2 : 6-8. 

4. The formal and carefully worded 
preface to this act of humility and love 
now to be related — which comprises 
the first three verses, and refers to the 
sublime truths of Christ's unchanging 
love for his people, and his full con- 
sciousness of his essential union with 
the Father, although the act of betrayal 
had been fully determined upon by Ju- 
das, at the suggestion of Satan — shows 
the importance which John attached to 
our Lord's wondrous act of condescen- 
sion, in the washing of the disciples' feet. 
lie riseth from supper. This does not ne- 
cessarily imply, as Olshausen supposes, 
that the meal properly considered had 
commenced. They had all taken their 
reclining places, and the first cup of 
wine had probably been passed. Our 
Lord then, in view of the strife for pre- 
cedence (Luke 22 : 24) which he had ob- 
served among his disciples, arose from 
his recumbent position, and performed 
the ablution here referred to. The 
time of the performance of this act had 
nothing in itself strange, as the feet 
were usually washed before supper. 
The wonder and astonishment with 
which the disciples were struck, arose 
from the fact, that their Lord and Mas- 
ter should condescend to so menial a 
service. It is to this that Jesus him- 



312 



JOHN". 



5 After that he poureth water 
into a basin, and began to wash 
the disciples' feet, and to wipe 

self refers in Luke 22 : 27, 28, which 
conversation, I am inclined to think 
took place after or during this washing 
of the disciples' feet. See N. on Luke 
22:27, 28. Laid aside; literally, lays 
aside, it being an historical present, rep- 
resenting the act as passing before the 
eye of the reader. Garments. This 
was the outer garment, which falling 
down to the feet in loose and flowing 
folds, would have impeded our Lord in 
the service he was about to perform. 
Tool: (literally, having taken) a toiccl. 
This was a linen cloth used both as a 
towel and an apron. And girded him- 
self. He threw this linen cloth over 
his shoulder and around his body in the 
form of a girdle, its folds or ends hang- 
ing loosely, so that it could readily be 
used in the manner here described (v. 
5). " To be thus girded was considered 
by the ancients in the same light, as 
a person's wearing an apron is by us, 
namely, as indicating the exercise of 
some servile occupation." Bloomfield. 
In connection with this point, Stier's 
remark may be quoted, that " the 
washing of the feet was not simply the 
lowest menial service, but according to 
human analogy, was at the same time 
no other than a service of honor and 
love, which the host might render to 
his guests." But to my knowledge, we 
read of no instance except this, where 
the service was rendered by a superior 
to an inferior. 

5. After that ; literally, then, after- 
wards, marking here the succession of 
time. He poureth ; literally, casteth or 
putteth, the verb indicating the ardor 
and activity, with which his love im- 
pelled him to arrange these prelimina- 
ries for the service he was about to 
perform. A basin ; literally, the basin, 
reference being had to the one which 
usually stood there for use, on occa- 
sions like this. Began to wash. The 
original is not the inceptive or inchoa- 
tive imperfect, but two distinct verbs 
giving the sense he proceeded to wash. 



them with the 
he was girded. 



[A. D. 33. 
towel wherewith 



The majority of commentators, there- 
fore, suppose that our Lord had washed 
the feet of several of his disciples be- 
fore he came to Peter. Alford how- 
ever considers the verbs began to wash, 
as not designed to show that he had 
washed the feet of one or more before 
the incident of the next verse, but as 
simply expressing his doing something 
unusual and unlooked for. He would 
render the connective then in v. 6, as 
equivalent to in pursuance of this in- 
tention he c&meth, &c. But in the first 
place, we can hardly suppose that such 
express language as began to wash — 
and to wipe, &c, would be employed 
of a mere anticipation of the act, and 
not its actual commencement ; and then 
we are led to inquire, what is to be 
gained by such a straining of the pas- 
sage to teach, that Peter was the first 
whose feet our Lord washed on this oc- 
casion. It would seem more probable 
and natural to suppose that this disci- 
ple, while looking in amazement at the 
performance of this strange act upon 
others of the company, had ample time 
to reflect upon its incongruity, and to 
form the determination that his Master 
should not perform for him so menial a 
service. If Peter was not the one who 
was nearest to him, it would seem out 
of place, on an occasion like this, when 
all human distinction faded away be- 
fore the majesty and exalted dignity of 
the Person who was stooping to such a 
depth of humiliation, to suppose that he 
would establish a difference of rank by 
going to that disciple first, and then per- 
haps to John and James, and so on in 
an order of descending gradation. 
This would foster that very feeling 
and desire for preeminence, which had 
given rise to the contention that took 
place among them when they sat down 
at the table. We have therefore no 
means whatever of knowing whose 
feet were washed first. All we know 
is that the service was performed for 
all, even for Judas, in whose black 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIII. 



311 



6 Then cometh he to Simon 
Peter : and Peter saith nnto 
him, Lord, g dost thou wash my 
feet? 

g See Mat. 3 : 14. 

heart the traitorous purpose had now 
become fully formed. Indeed it was 
the opinion of Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact, and many others, that the traitor 
was the first whose feet Jesus washed. 
But this would seem, on the other 
hand, too much the matter of precal- 
culation and design to single out Judas, 
unless he happened to be the nearest 
to him when he began the service. 
Such an act as this must not have its 
naturalness and simplicity marred, by 
forcing upon it the marks of a precon- 
ceived plan and management, either to 
give Peter the preeminence, or to 
fasten the attention of the company 
upon Judas, as one specially singled 
out to be the first whom our Lord con- 
descended to wash. 

6. Then as he was passing around in 
performing this service. Lord, dost thou, 
&o. The collocation of the words in 
the original is very emphatic. Lord. 
Peter first addresses his Master by the 
customary title of honor. We may 
suppose his tone to be that of surprise 
and earnest expostulation. The next 
words in the order of the original are 
thou and my, in which infinite dignity 
and worth, on the one hand, and weak- 
ness, sin, and ill-desert, on the other, 
are placed in juxtaposition. The next 
word is art xoashing (i. e. intending to 
wash), a service which even among 
poor mortal men, is committed to ser- 
vants. Last of all, and as if reserved 
to concentrate upon it, all the gathering 
feelings of amazement at such an un- 
heard stoop of love, the word feet, is 
expressed. Every word in this short 
interrogation is designed to give expres- 
sion to the wonder and amazement, 
with which Peter regarded the act 
which his Master was now approaching 
him to perform. The interrogation 
does not, however, absolutely forbid 
the performance of the act ; it is only 
expressive of astonishment that it 
Vol. III.— 14 



7 Jesus answered and said unto 
him, What I do thou knowest 
not now; hut thou shalt know 
hereafter. 

h Ver. 12. 

should be thought of. The prohibition 
is found in v. 8. It is the usual remark 
of expositors, that here we see the 
ready and impetuous zeal of Peter for 
the honor of his Master, although, as 
in several other instances, he under- 
takes, in a spirit of opposition and even 
refusal, to act as a censor upon the acts 
and doings of our Lord. He should 
have received in silent submission this 
service of Jesus, and waited for the 
future revelation of its true significan- 
ce, satisfied for the present that a Be- 
ing of such wisdom, in the performance 
of this act, had a design which he 
would in due time unfold. 

7. Our Lord gently rebukes Peter's 
presumption and ignorance, and at the 
same time promises him such future 
illumination as shall clear up the mys- 
tery of this transaction. What L do, i. 
e. the meaning or significancy of what 
I am doing. Thou Tcnoxcest not now. He 
had made this manifest, by his presump- 
tuous interference with the service 
which Jesus was rendering to his disci- 
ples. There is an obvious antithesis 
between now and hereafter, which refers 
the meaning to the act of washing 
which Peter had disclaimed against, and 
which in the next verse he utterly re- 
pels from being applied to himself. 
But thou shalt know, &c. We shall see 
in vs. 13-1*7, how fully our Lord made 
known to his disciples the lesson, which 
he would teach them by this strange 
service in which he had been engaged. 
Hereafter; literally, after these things, 
i. e. after the washing of the feet of all 
is completed. Some refer this revela- 
tion to the world to come ; but that 
such is not its true meaning is evident 
from the following context, in which 
Jesus did actually explain the object 
which he had in view in this symbolic 
act, 

8. It cannot but excite our wonder 
that Peter, after this promise of our 



314 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



8 Peter saith unto him, Thou 
shalt never wash my feet. Je- 
sus answered him, ' If I wash 
thee not, thou hast no part with 
me. 

9 Simon Peter saith unto him, 



i Oh. 3:5; I Co. 6:11; Ep. 5 : 2€ 
lie. 10: 22. 



Tit. 3:5; 



Lord to reveal his design in thus wash- 
ing their feet, should yet persist in 
repelling the service, even to a positive 
denial that it should ever be done to 
him by his Master. TJiou shalt never, 
&c. "While the world standeth." 
Tynd. The reply has all the charac- 
teristic energy and outspoken plainness 
of Peter. The literal rendering is : 
thou shalt not wash my feet forever. 
The interrogation in v. 6 implies a re- 
luctance on the part of Peter, that his 
Master should perform for him so me- 
nial a service. But now his impetuosi- 
ty has so far gained the ascendency, that 
he avers, that, as long as the world 
standeth, he will never permit this to be 
done to him by his Lord. If I wash thee 
not, &c. Jesus did not seek to remove 
the objection of Peter, by any further 
reference to the specific design of the 
present act. But he arouses and star- 
tles his conscience by an intimation, that 
he must be subject to a moral cleansing, 
to perform which Jesus stooped to a 
greater depth of humiliation even that 
of the cross, or he would have no part 
in the peace, joy, and blessedness of 
those whom Christ numbered as his 
own. That our Saviour did not refer 
here to the external act in which he 
was then engaged, is evident from the 
fact that Judas had received this wash- 
ing, and yet had no part in Jesus. It 
is worthy of remark, that this reference 
to a spiritual cleansing is here merely 
incidental, as no further allusion is 
made to it, not even in the explanation 
given of the symbolical character of 
this feetwashing, in the verses which 
follow. Part has here the sense of 
participation, fellowship. See 1 John 
1:3, 7. 

9. Peter, on learning that he must 



Lord, not my feet only, but also 
my hands and my head. 

10 Jesus saith to him, He that 
is washed needeth not save to 
wash his feet, but is clean every 
whit : and *ye are clean, but not 
all. 

£Ch. 15:3. 

receive this washing, in order to share 
in the love and favor of Jesus, now as 
vehemently expresses his desire to be 
washed, as previously his aversion to the 
act. He would now have even his 
hands and head made subject to this 
washing, to which such virtue was at- 
tached. Had he in this expression of 
desire, any view of the spiritual cleans- 
ing to which Jesus referred ? I cannot 
but think that such was the fact, and 
that in designating the other parts of 
his body which he would gladly have 
washed, he only made use of this ex- 
ternal washing, as a symbol of that 
which he would have performed upon 
every part of his moral and spiritual 
nature. 'Do you indeed say, that I 
must receive with an obedient and 
submissive spirit, the lesser act of hu- 
mility and love from thine hand, or I 
cannot hope to have that spiritual wash- 
ing, which thou hast subjected thyself 
to greater humiliation to have it in 
thy power to bestow ? Lord, if this be 
so, wash not my feet only, but also my 
hands and my head.' Such I conceive 
to be the train of thought which passed 
through Peter's mind, and led him to 
ardently crave that which he had just 
rejected in such strong and positive 
language. So Stier remarks: "Thus 
alone can we understand, in a sense 
worthy of the apostle, the instant re- 
traction of his emphatic never, and the 
impetuous going beyond of the offer 
of his hands and his head." 

10. Peter had spoken of a washing 
of his feet, hands, and head. But our 
Lord extends the idea to a bathing of 
the whole body ; and as this presup- 
posed such a state of bodily cleanliness, 
that there would be no need of any 
further washing, save to remove the 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIII. 



315 



11 For 'he knew who should 

l Ch. 6 : C4. 

dust which would gather upon the feet; 
so they who had been spiritually 
cleansed, being rendered thereby clean 
in every part of their moral nature, 
would need no repetition of that moral 
purification or regeneration, except 
from the defilement which a partially 
sanctified sinful nature would incur, 
and which, like that of the feet, would 
require a frequent cleansino; through 
the pardoning grace of the Redeemer. 
Such I conceive to be the sentiment 
of our Lord's reply, the analogy being 
still carried on between physical puri- 
fication, and that of the soul, which 
had been started in v. 8. He that is 
washed; literally, he that has bathed, or 
is fresh bathed. Reference is had to 
the washing of the whole body in the 
bath. The full bath was taken before 
the principal meal, and when this was 
done, there was no necessity for fur- 
ther ablutions, except to remove the 
defilement contracted by the feet, as 
the person walked about the house. 
Here is the very point of the resem- 
blance. Peter had given evidence that 
he had been subject to this moral 
cleansing. There was no need there- 
fore that he should be regenerated 
anew, and his wish that his hands and 
head should be washed as well as his 
feet, while it evinced a laudable desire 
to be wholly cleansed from all defile- 
ment, was yet unnecessary, inasmuch as 
the washing of the whole spiritual man 
had already taken place. Henceforth 
he would need only that cleansing pro- 
cess, which was well represented in 
bodily purification, by the washing of 
the feet. Prof. Crosby well expresses it : 
"The soul washed in Christ's blood 
needs only to be cleansed from the 
remnants of sin. The great washing 
has been done." But is clean every 
whit; literally, altogether, or in the 
whole person. This does not imply sin- 
less perfection in the believer, but sim- 
ply that when the regenerating influ- 
ences of the Spirit are bestowed upon 
a man, his whole moral nature is 
cleansed, and he needs not a second 



betray him ; therefore said he, Ye 
are not all clean. 

purification. That there is yet remain- 
ing, to a greater or less extent, indwell- 
ing sin, and doubt, and unbelief, is 
evident not only from other portions 
of God's word, but also from the ex- 
ception here made in the words, save to 
w-ash his feet. Ye are clean, i. e. have 
received this cleansing of the Spirit, 
and are in a state of justification and 
acceptance with God. But not all. 
Judas was present, and is here solemn- 
ly excepted from the number of those 
who had been cleansed from sin. May 
not our Lord have designed to arouse 
his conscience by this intimation of his 
lost condition? Such seems to have 
been his merciful intention here and in 
v. IS, where he again alludes to the 
defection of Judas. 

11. The superhuman knowledge of 
Jesus, is in various ways kept by the 
Evangelist before the mind of his 
reader. The treachery of Judas was 
as well known to Christ at this time, as 
when afterward he led forth the band 
of armed men to Gethsemane, and with 
traitorous kiss pointed out to them the 
one whom they were to lay hold of and 
bind. Hence he employed the words 
not all, with the most full and perfect 
knowledge of Avhat he said. For shows 
the ground of his exception to the fact 
of their being all clean. IVho shozdd 
betray. The present participle is 
here employed in the original, denoting 
what grammarians call the absolute or 
indefinite present, reference being had 
thereby to an act, irrespective of the 
precise time when it was to be per- 
formed. A very good translation of 
the word in this use of it, would be, the 
one betraying him, his betrayer. "Web- 
ster and Wilkinson overlook this gram^ 
matical feature, and translate the parti- 
ciple, icho teas going to betray him. The 
repetition therefore said he, &c,, is de^ 
signed to impart emphasis to his excep? 
tion of Judas from the number of those 
who were cleansed from sin, on account 
of his absolute knowledge of the dark 
and dreadful deed which he was on the 
eve of committing. 



316 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



12 So after lie had washed 
their feet, and had taken his gar- 
ments, and was set down again, 
he said unto them, Know ye what 
I have done to you ? 

13 "'Ye call me Master and 

m Mat. 23:8,10; Lit. 6: 46; 1 Co. 8:6; & 12 : 
3; Phi. 2:11. 

12. So after; literally, when there- 
fore. The narrative is here resumed 
from v. 6, where our Lord was inter- 
rupted in his service, by the unwilling- 
ness of Peter that Jesus should stoop 
to such humiliation as to wash his feet. 
Had taken (i. e. had resumed) his gar- 
ments, i. e. the upper or outer garment. 
See N. on v. 4. Was set down again ; 
literally, falling back again, i. e. resum- 
ing his reclining position at the table. 
The verb here made use of is not the 
one usually employed to denote reclin- 
ing at meals, yet it has evidently that 
signification, with the additional idea of 
a sudden and rapid movement. Know 
ye what I have done to you ? ' Do you 
understand the lesson, which this act 
was designed to teach you ?' The ques- 
tion is rhetorically employed to bring 
the subject fully before their mind. He 
is now about to fulfil his promise to 
Peter (v. 7), that after he had finished 
what he was then doing, he would ex- 
plain the design and import of the act. 
The holy ardor with which Jesus en- 
tered upon these last scenes of his 
earthly ministry, is evinced among oth- 
er things, by the unfaltering energy 
with which he accomplished what re- 
mained for him to do. Here is to be 
read, as forming a part of his explana- 
tion, Luke 22 : 25-30. 

13. Ye call me, &c. 'You acknowl- 
edge by these titles with which you ad- 
dress me, that I am your superior.' 
Master and Lord have in the original 
the form of direct address, as though it 
had been written, Master, Lord. 
Or with Stier we may give it this turn : 
' when ye speak of me, ye say the Mas- 
ter, the Lord? These titles are not one 
and the same. Master is the title given 
by disciples to their teacher. Lord is one 
whose commands are to be obeyed. In 



Lord : and ye say well ; for so I 
am. 

14 n If I then, your Lord and 
Master, have washed your feet ; 
ye also ought to wash one an- 
nother's feet. 

n Lu. 22 : 27. 
o Eo. 12 : 10 ; Ga. 6 : 1, 2 ; 1 Pc. 5 : 5. 

v. 14, the order is changed to Lord and 
Master, the form in which the phrase is 
generally used by Christians of the 
present day. Ye say well, i. e. this is 
a proper mode of address. For so L 
am. The literal translation for I am, 
would have been preferable, since his 
reply is so worded as to express the 
assertion, I am (your Lord and Master), 
and also to bring out that great and 
ineffable I AM, in which he claims the 
attributes of Jehovah. 

14. Our Lord here teaches the lesson 
of humility and love, which was design- 
ed by the act in which he had just been 
engaged. The argument is a fortiori 
(see N. on Matt. 5:16). If I your 
acknowledged superior, condescend to 
perform for you the service of an in- 
ferior, much more ought ye, instead of 
disputing and striving for the preemi- 
nence (see Luke 22 : 24), to perform 
this friendly office for one another. 
That a literal washing of feet is not 
here enjoined upon the disciples, but 
only that humility and love, which would 
prompt them to do kindly and even 
self-denying offices for one another, is 
very evident. The early Christians 
practised no such religious custom. 
What is said in 1 Tim. 5 : 10, is to be 
interpreted in the same manner in 
which we explain these words of our 
Lord, as designed to designate the hos- 
pitable and self-humbling duties which 
Christians should practise towards one 
another. There is also internal evi- 
dence, that our Lord does not mean this 
to be a literal injunction. In the whole 
of his gospel, he is careful to dispense 
with all ceremonies and rites. No 
forms are laid down for observance. 
No ceremonies were prescribed. The 
whole essence of his teaching was love. 
To suppose therefore that he should 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIII. 



317 



15 For p I have given you an 
example, that ye should do as I 
have done to you. 

16 y Verily, verily, I say unto 

©Mat. 11:29; PM. 2:5; 1 Pe. 2:21; 1 Jo. 
2:6. 



institute a ceremony, such as is per- 
formed by the Pope, when he washes 
the feet of twelve beggars under the 
lofty dome of St. Peters, is at war with 
the whole tenor of his teaching, which 
Avas against these outward and unmean- 
ing rites and observances. If it be 
said that he instituted the Lord's sup- 
per, this surely is not to be placed in 
the same category with the washing of 
feet. The one was of such a nature as 
to awaken all the spiritual emotions of 
love, thankfulness, and joy; the other, 
to beget pride, false humility, and -vain- 
glory. The one was significant of a 
great truth which it was designed to 
keep in remembrance ; the other was 
a mere symbolical act, intended to im- 
press upon the minds of the disciples a 
lesson of humility and brotherly love, 
but which in the form of a ritual and 
stated observance, would not only 
utterly fail to produce the result at 
which it aimed, but tend to beget emo- 
tions of the very opposite kind. In 
regard to the custom of the Pope, on 
Maundy Thursday, of performing this 
rite upon twelve aged beggars, Ben- 
gel, with well-merited sarcasm, observes 
that " the Pope would do a more re- 
markable thing, if in unfeigned humili- 
ty, he washed the feet of one king, 
than he does in washing the feet of 
twelve poor men." 

15. For I have given you, &c. Our 
Lord here plainly declares that his act 
was symbolical, and designed as an ex- 
ample of the spirit of humility, love, 
and self-abasement, which should char- 
acterize all their relations to one ano- 
ther. The word rendered example, 
literally signifies, a 'sign, form, pattern, 
consisting in some outward manifesta- 
tion. The precept of brotherly love 
and humility was here enforced and 
illustrated, by an outward or visible act 
impressing itself upon the external 



you, The servant is not greater 
than his lord ; neither he that is 
sent greater 
him. 



than he that sent 



2 Mat 10:24; Lu. 6:40; ch. 15:20. 



senses. That yc should do, &c. The 
literal order of construction is, that as 
I did (in the original the aorist tense is 
employed) to you, you also may do to 
one another. It is to be noted, that 
the language is not : what I did to you, 
ye also must do, &c. Identity of act 
is not the thing enjoined, but identity 
of spirit and temper : as I did to you, 
&c, that is, ' you should exercise the 
same humility and love, which I have 
manifested in this act.' There can be 
no doubt that this is the great and only 
lesson of the passage. If this humility, 
self-abasement, and brotherly love, re- 
quire the performance of any menial 
service, even to the washing the feet, 
it is to be cheerfully performed. It is 
by no means, however, to be limited or 
restricted to that which is low and ser- 
vile, but embraces the whole range of 
duty and service which brotherly love 
requires one disciple of Christ to ren- 
der to another. As in the original is 
emphatic, just as. 

16. Verily, verily, indicating the im- 
portance of the truth which he was 
about to announce. The servant, &c. 
A proverbial saying, which our Lord 
here makes use of, to show that the in- 
ferior should not deem himself too high 
to do any service which his superior has 
stooped to perform. The argument is 
a fortiori : if the superior thus humbles 
himself, much, more should the inferior 
practise humility and self-abasement, 
when duty calls him thus to do. The 
saying is made use of by our Lord sev- 
eral times in his ministry. See 15 : 20 ; 
Matt. 10 : 24; Luke 6 : 40. He that is 
sent; literally, an apostle, i. e. one who 
is sent forth to announce some message 
or execute some commission. The cor- 
relate is he that sent, which refers in 
the nature of the case to one of supe- 
rior rank or station. This renders the 
adage very applicable to the relation 



318 



J0H>7. 



[A. D. 83. 



17 'If ye know these things, 
happy are ye if ye do them. 

18 I speak not of you all: I 
know whom I have chosen : but 

r Ja. 1 : 25. 

which subsisted between the disciples 
and Christ, as those whom he was about 
to send forth on their apostolic labors. 

17. If ye hioio, &c. " The mere rec- 
ognition of such a duty of humility, is a 
very much more easy matter than the 
putting it in practice." Alford. The 
hypothetical form of our Lord's words 
does not indicate any doubt on his part, 
as to their understanding the meaning 
of the act which he had just performed. 
The assumption that it is so, is made the 
ground of the assertion, that the doing 
of things of this sort which are known 
and recognized as duty, is that which 
secures blessedness. This is clearly 
shown in the original by the use of the 
indicative, which is employed in a con- 
ditional sentence, when the speaker 
has such a persuasion of the reality of 
the condition, that he has no doubt of 
it, although he does not express it as 
an actual fact. In the next clause, if 
ye do them, the subjunctive is used, 
which leaves it to experience to decide, 
whether the thing spoken of will hap- 
pen or not. If ye do, i. e. in case ye do 
them. There is, however, no uncer- 
tainty in the happy result, which will 
follow this obedience to the command 
of Christ to practise humility and self- 
abasement in our intercourse with one 
another. 

18. Our Lord's tender solicitude for 
Judas again finds utterance in the 
words of this verse. We must not for- 
get that he was still present, and not 
yet beyond the power of being reclaimed 
by the warnings of his Master, had he 
listened to them, and thrown himself 
upon Jesus for forgiveness. / speak 
not of you all. Reference is had to the 
blessedness promised in the preceding 
verse to those, who render obedience to 
the duties which had been so clearly 
made known to them. Our Lord could 
not promise this blessed fruit of obe- 
dience to them all, for Judas was not 



that the scripture may he fulfill- 
ed, 5 He that eateth bread with 
me hath lifted up his heel against 
me. 

S Ps. 41 : 9 ; Mat. 26 : 23 : ver. 21. 



of the number of his chosen ones, hav- 
ing in the prophetic language of Scrip- 
ture, lifted up his heel against him. 1 
know. Here again is that absolute 
knowledge, which distinguishes Jesus 
from every other religious teacher who 
had appeared among men. We arc 
continually meeting in John's gospel 
with this Iknoiu, and that too of such 
subjects, as are beyond human knowl- 
edge and discernible only by the eye of 
omniscience. Who can doubt that this 
oft-repeated expression was recorded 
by the Evangelist, as collateral proof of 
his great assertion of Christ's divinity in 
1:1? Whom I have chosen. This 
cannot refer to the apostleship, for Ju- 
das was at this very time numbered 
among those who had been chosen to 
this office. Nor would a fact so noto- 
rious as the choosing of the Twelve, have 
been introduced by the solemn asseve- 
ration / know. In 6 : 70, reference is 
had to the selection to the apostleship, 
the words have not I chosen you twelve, 
expressly including him in the number. 
But here not only do the words stand 
in a different connection, but an excep- 
tion is expressly made in the preceding 
clause i" speak not of you all, to their 
being all the objects of his choice to 
this state of blessedness which follows 
obedience. The subsequent context 
limits this exception to only one, who 
by his voluntary desertion of Jesus and 
defection to his enemies, had separated 
himself from those to whom pertained 
these promises of future blessedness. 
This was not unforeseen or unprovided 
for, inasmuch as it was in accordance 
with prophecy, and therefore a part of 
the divine counsel, which embraced not 
only the death of Jesus, but all the cir- 
cumstances attending it, and the causes 
which led to it. The conjunction but, 
is not to be constructed with the clause 
immediately preceding — a construction 
which has led to the misinterpretation 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIII. 



319 



19 ' Now I tell you before it 
come, that, when it is come to 
pass, ye may believe that I am 
he. 

'20 " Verily, verity, I say unto 

of the words have chosen, as referring to 
the mere choice to apostleship — but 
with the clause I speak not of you all, 
there being an implied ellipsis : but (thus 
it is with you) that the scripture, &c. 
The quotation is from Ps. 41 : 9, the 
reference being to Ahithophel, who in 
this respect was the type of Judas. 
The words as here quoted are slightly 
altered from the original, which did eat 
of my bread, being lie that eateth bread 
with vie. There is no essential differ- 
ence, both forms of expression referring 
to the most intimate friendship, deno- 
ted in Oriental phrase by eating at the 
same table. The idea of dependence is 
more particularly referred to in the He- 
brew, because Ahithophel sat at David's 
table and was fed by him, which could 
not be exactly said of the relation of 
Judas to Jesus, who w r as possessed of 
no worldly property, but subsisted with 
his followers mainly upon the bounty 
of his friends. But, as Olshauscn re- 
marks, " every day he received from 
the Redeemer the bread of life, and on 
this account was bound to be faithful to 
him, by a far stronger obligation than 
if he had only partaken of corporeal 
food." Rath lifted up his heel against 
me. The metaphor is supposed to be 
taken from an animal of such vicious 
propensities, that it suddenly turns and 
kicks at its owner, even wdien he is 
treating it with kindness, and perhaps 
proffering it its accustomed food. Thus 
insidiously did Judas, like Ahithophel of 
old, plot the ruin of one, to whom he 
should have felt himself bound by the 
strongest ties of gratitude and love. 
The conjunction that, with which the 
citation is introduced, does not denote 
purpose, but result. There was in the 
treacherous conduct of Judas, a fulfil- 
ment of what had been typified in 
Ahithophel's treatment of David. The 
prediction, like that in Matt. 1 : 23, lies 
in the event referred to in Ps. 41 : 9, 



you, He that receiveth whomso- 
ever I send receiveth me; and 
he that receiveth me receiveth 
him that sent me. 

*Ch. 14:29;&1G:4. 
u Mat. 10 : 40 ; & 25 : 40 ; Lu. 10 : 16. 



and not simply in the words. See N". 
on Matt, 1 : 23. 

19. Our Lord here adduces the rea- 
son, why he made this disclosure of the 
defection of one of their number. He 
would impress upon them the great 
truth, that from the very beginning he 
was fully cognizant of all the circum- 
stances of his approaching apprehension 
and death. Additional proof would 
thus be furnished to his disciples, that 
he was the Son of God, with whom the 
future Avas as the present. But now ; 
literally, from this time. He would 
have theni remember the very time, in 
which he made this disclosure of the 
treachery of Judas. Before it come, i. e. 
before the perfidy of Judas has been 
consummated. That I am he. The 
most natural interpretation is that af- 
fixed to these words in 8 : 24. It would 
greatly strengthen the faith of the dis- 
ciples in Jesus' Messiahship, soon to be 
so severely tested, to recur to the dis- 
tinct terms in which he announced the 
circumstances of his betrayal and death. 
The common interpretation I regard, 
therefore, as the true one. Augustine's 
exposition is this, 'that I am he of 
whom this scripture speaks.' But, as 
Stier well remarks, this sense is too 
restricted. 

20. See K on Matt. 10 : 40, where 
these w r ords were spoken on the occa- 
sion of the sending forth of the Twelve 
on their missionary tour. There is 
however a slight variation, the third 
person being used here in an indefinite 
sense, w r here the second person is em- 
ployed in Matthew. The principal dif- 
ficulty lies here in establishing the con- 
nection, especially with the preceding 
context. The majority of expositors 
regard the passage as intended to en- 
courage the disciples, w r hose spirits may 
have been somewhat depressed at the 
sad announcement, that one of their 
number should betray Jesus. So Stier 



E20 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



21 l"*Wheii Jesus had thus 
said, v he was troubled in spirit, 

x Mat. 26: 21 ; Ma. 14 : IS; Lu. 22: 21. 
y Ch.l2:27. 



paraphrases: "Be ye faithful ones of 
good courage, ye retain your honor as 
the messengers whom I shall soon send 
forth, the devil shall have no other 
among you." But, as Alford remarks, 
should we not have had the second per- 
son, as when the words were spoken 
for this purpose in Matt. 10 : 40 ? Be- 
sides it is not clear, that the disciples at 
this time were seized with such great 
and sudden depression of spirit, as to 
call for words of special encouragement. 
Another mode of explanation, is to con- 
nect this verse with vs. 16, IV ; vs. 18, 
19 being parenthetic. But this estab- 
lishes the position, but not the logical 
connection of the verse. I agree there- 
fore substantially with Alford, that this 
saying so apparently abrupt and intro- 
duced with such emphasis (verily, verily), 
is designed to show the dignity of that 
office, from which Judas was about to 
fall. In being chosen to it, he had been 
admitted to a post of the highest hon- 
or. It was an office which rendered a 
service done to its incumbent, the same 
as though it had been done to Jesus 
Christ, and to Him that sent him. 
Hence it enhanced the guilt and con- 
demnation of this wretched man, that 
he proved false to a Master who had 
chosen him to an office of such impor- 
tance and dignity. This exposition es- 
tablishes a close connection of thought, 
both with the preceding and following 
context. It gives emphasis to the aw- 
ful defection of Judas, which had just 
before been predicted, and accounts for 
the anguish of spirit with which in the 
following verse, our Lord makes the 
explicit declaration, that one of their 
number should betray him. 

21-35. Jesus points out the Trai- 
tor. Judas withdraws. Jerusalem. 
Evening introducing the sixth day of 
the Week. See Ns. on Matt. 26 : 21-25 ; 
Mark 14: 18-21 ; Luke 22 : 21-23. In 
these parallel accounts of the treachery 
and withdrawal of Judas, the fullest 



and testified, and said, Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, that z one 
of you shall betray me. 

z Ac. 1 : IT ; Uo. 2 : 19. 

and most particular is that given by 
John. The whole of the incident de- 
scribed in vs. 23-26, is peculiar to this 
Evangelist. The same also is true of 
what is said about the sop given to Ju- 
das, and his immediate departure to 
consummate his deed of treachery (vs. 
26-30). It is therefore a very valuable 
supplement to the account given by 
the other Evangelists, and should be 
read in connection with their record, in 
order that all the features of the transac- 
tion may be impressed upon the mind 
and thoroughly understood. Between 
vs. 26 and 2*7, Matt. 26 : 25 should be 
interposed. The immediate result of 
the frank declaration of Jesus there 
made to the question of Judas, "Mas- 
ter, is it I?" is seen in the new and 
more virulent possession of his soul by 
Satan, recorded here by John. 

21. When Jesus had thus said; lite- 
rally, having said these things, the 
main emphasis being thrown by the 
participial construction upon the fol- 
lowing verb was troubled, which, as has 
been remarked (Note on 12 : 27), is a 
word expressive of the greatest mental 
disturbance and agitation. Something 
more, however, than the natural emo- 
tions of grief for violated friendship is 
here intended. Both here and in 12: 
27, there seems to have swept across 
his troubled spirit, a dark foreshadow- 
ing of that awful and mysterious agony, 
which afterwards, in Gethsemane and 
on the cross, came upon him in such 
overwhelming power. The act of ten- 
der service which he had just perform- 
ed upon his disciples, together with the 
thought that one whom he had chosen 
to the apostolic office, and admitted 
among the number of his most intimate 
friends, should be guilty of such base 
ingratitude as to betray him to his ene- 
mies, filled him with distress ; and he 
seemed impelled to cast himself upon 
the sympathies of his disciples, by 
pointing out the traitor in whose heart 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIII. 



121 



22 Then the disciples looked 
one on another, doubting of whom 
he spake. 

a Ch. 19 : 26 ; & 20 : 2 ; & 21 : 7, 20, 24. 

was such black perfidy. We may sup- 
pose a brief interval of time between 
the preceding verse and this, the emo- 
tions of Jesus being too powerful to ad- 
mit of utterance. This we infer from 
the verb was troubled, which as has 
been remarked, is expressive of the 
greatest mental excitement. The words 
in spirit, are added for the sake of em- 
phasis, the idea being that he was 
troubled in the very depths of his 
soul — that his spirit was wrung with 
anguish. Here begins the illustration 
and proof of the great fact, that it was 
not bodily but mental agony, which 
constituted the principal sufferings of 
our Lord in his passion for a lost world. 
And testified, refers to an open declara- 
tion, in contrast with an indirect or 
covert allusion. Verily, verily. It is 
noticeable how frequently on this occa- 
sion, he uses this emphatic formula. 
There is a very exact agreement be- 
tween this announcement in John, and 
in Matthew and Mark. Luke has it, 
" the hand of him that betrayeth me is 
with me on the table." In like manner 
Mark adds, " one of you which eateth 
with me." There is a substantial agree- 
ment between all the Evangelists, the 
slight verbal differences only serving 
to prove that they are independent of 
one another's statement. 

22. Then the disciples looked, &c. 
We learn from the other Evangelists, 
that they did this with the most lively 
emotions of sorrow, and earnest inqui- 
ries as to who of them could do so base 
an act. The searching glances which 
they cast upon one another, did not 
however reveal the traitor. Jesus, 
therefore, in order to show how perfect 
was his knowledge of the circumstances 
of his betrayal, and to relieve the 
minds of his disciples, wrought up to 
the highest pitch of excitement by 
what he had announced, points out be- 
yond the possibility of mistake the 
traitor. Doubting; literally, being at 
Vol. III.— 14* 



23 Now * there was leaning on 
Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, 
whom Jesus loved. 



loss or in a state of perplexity. They 
had no means of determining who was 
the guilty person. Several minutes we 
may suppose to have been spent, in these 
efforts which they made to detect guilt 
in the countenance of some one of 
their number, and in their appeals to 
the Lord to establish for each his inno- 
cence. See Ns. on Matt. 26 : 22 ; Mark 
14:19. 

23. John now records an incident, 
which is omitted by the other Evangel- 
ists, although hinted at by Matthew 
(26 : 23). Now there teas leaning, &c. 
John reclined next to Jesus at the tri- 
clinium (see N. on Matt. 23 : 6), and 
hence his position was such, that he 
could address his Master in tones so 
low, as to be heard by no one else at 
the table. Whom Jesus loved. Here 
for the first time John refers to him- 
self, as one for whom Jesus had a pecu- 
liar affection. The expression occurs 
again in 19 : 26 ; 21:7, 20, which latter 
reference compared with 21 : 24, shows 
beyond all doubt, that the Evangelist 
himself is referred to by this designa- 
tion. 

24. Peter with characteristic for- 
wardness and decision determines to 
ascertain, if possible, who the traitor 
is ; and knowing that John shared 
greatly in the love and confidence of 
Jesus, and withal seeing how favorable 
was his position for addressing the in- 
quiry to his Master, makes signs to him 
that he should ask who the traitor was. 
Peter does not suppose, as Alford inti- 
mates, that John was already possessed 
of this knowledge, but wishes him to 
learn from Jesus' own lips the name 
of the betrayer. The intimacy between 
these two disciples (see 20 : 2 ; Acts 3 : 
1), makes these signs which pass be- 
tween them at the table quite natural. 
Wlio it should be, or better, who it 
might (possibly) be. There is a sort of 
incredulity in the question, as though 
after all, it could not be possible that 



322 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



24 Simon Peter therefore beck- 
oned to him that he should ask 
who it should be of whom he 
spake. 

25 He then lying on Jesus' 
breast saith unto him, Lord, 
who is it ? 

any one of the number could do such 
an act. 

25. Lying. This is a different word 
from th.t made use of in v. 23, render- 
ed leaning. Its literal signification is, 
falling or throwing one's self upon. 
Compare Luke 15: 20. Most commen- 
tators think that it refers to a slight 
change cf position, by which the head 
of John was brought nearer to that of 
his Master, so that the slightest whisper 
could be heard by the latter. Dr. 
Robinson explains it, " throwing him- 
self back on Jesus' breast as he reclin- 
ed at table." So Alford: "I under- 
stand it, that John, who was before ly- 
ing close to the bosom of Jesus, now 
leaned his head absolutely upon his 
breast to ask the question." Webster 
and Wilkinson go so far as to suggest, 
that he may have embraced Jesus be- 
fore proposing the question. Lord, who 
is it ? That the rest of the company did 
not hear what passed between John and 
his Master, is evident from vs. 28, 29. 

26. To this question of the beloved 
disciple, our Lord answers without re- 
serve. It was the one to whom he 
should give the sop, who should betray 
him. This might be better and more 
literally translated, the little morsel or 
bit, referring doubtless to a small bit 
of bread broken from the loaf, and 
about to be dipped in the broth made 
of bitter herbs. See N. on Matt. 26 : 
23. The private intimation given to 
John, is not to be confounded with the 
answer of Jesus to the inquiry which 
they made in general, Lord, is it I? 
That was doubtless made before this 
response to John's private inquiry, 
which resulted probably from Peter's 
inability to understand to whom the 
words of Jesus, recorded in Matt. 26 : 23, 
had special reference. And when he 
had dipped ; literally, and having dip- 



26 Jesus answered, He it is, to 
whom I shall give a sop, when I 
have dipped it. And when he 
had dipped the sop, he gave it 
to Judas Iscariot, the son of Si- 
mon. 



ped. The participial form both here 
and in the preceding clause, shows that 
the act of dipping the sop, was subor- 
dinate to the giving of it to Judas. It 
was that which especially pointed out 
the traitor. Here we may suppose the 
question of Judas (Matt. 26 : 25) to 
have come in, which with conscious 
guilt he proposed, doubtless in a low 
voice, especially if, as some suppose, 
he reclined so near Jesus, as to hear 
his reply to John. Alford remarks, 
that this giving of the sop was one of 
the closest testimonials of friendly af- 
fection. If so, we see that our Lord, up 
to the very time of his going forth to 
consummate his black and perfidious 
deed, gave him the most friendly tokens 
of affection. This should have won 
him back to the path of rectitude 
which he had already left (Matt. 26 : 
14-16 ; Luke 21 : 3-6), and to Avhich it 
would soon be impossible to retrace his 
steps. Stier, who inclines to the belief 
that Judas partook of the sacrament 
of the Lord's supper, regards this as a 
second and more direct indication of 
the traitor, which did not take place 
till after the supper. The first indica- 
tion he thinks appeal's in vs. 21, 22, 
and synchronizes with the report of the 
other Evangelists (see Matt. 26:23; 
Mark 14: 20). But the more I study 
the harmony of the events here spoken 
of, the more I am persuaded that Judas 
withdrew before the Eucharist, and that 
no such first and second intimation, as 
Stier speaks of, were given to John at 
different times. The circumstances 
took place in the order in which they 
are here recorded, with no such inter- 
ruption as would result from interpos- 
ing the celebration of the Lord's sup- 
per between vs. 22 and 23. 

27. After the sop (i. c. the giving of 
the sop to him as related in v. 26) Satan 



A. D. 



CHAPTER XIII. 



323 



27 b And after the sop Satan 
entered into him. Then said 
Jesus unto him, That thou doest, 
do quickly. 

28 Now no man at the table 
knew for what intent he spake 
this unto him. 

&Lu. 22:8; ch. G:70. 

entered into him, i. c. now took full 
possession of him, and swayed him to 
the commission of the perfidious deed j 
he bad been contemplating. This en- 
tire possession of Judas by Satan, took ' 
place, as the passage here clearly indi- 
cates, immediately after he had receiv- 
ed the sop, and had been pointed out 
(see Matt. 26 : 25) as the betrayer. In- 
furiated with rage at the detection of 
his treacherous design, and apprehen- 
sive of still farther exposure should he 
remain in the company, he hesitates no 
longer in putting into execution his 
purpose. With the last words of Jesus 
ringing in his ears — an admonition to 
do quickly what he was about to do — 
he went forth in the dark hour of night 
to achieve the most stupendous crime 
ever committed on earth, making his 
name a synonym of every thing vile 
and infamous. That thou doest (i. e. art 
intending to do) do quickly. Trollope 
says that this is a proverbial phrase, ex- 
pressive of submission to an act, mingled 
with contempt for the agent. The word 
rendered quickly, is of stronger import 
in the original, being a comparative ad- 
jective used adverbially, quicker (than 
was your intention) i. e. as quickly as \ 
possible. Our Lord in the exercise of 
his omniscience, knew that the misera- 
ble man had now yielded himself up 
fully to the devil, and made therefore 
no further attempt to reach his con- 
science and reclaim him. This is not 
to be regarded, therefore, as a com- 
mand, serving in any sense to exculpate 
Judas from sin in the commission of 
the deed which he is here told to do 
quickly. It was not the direction of 
our Lord that the act should be per- 
formed, but that having been fully 
determined upon, it should be exe- 
cuted without delay. His hypocrisy in 



29 For some of iliem thought, 
because c Judas had the bag, that 
Jesus had said unto him, Buy 
those things that we have need 
of against the feast ; or, that he 
should give something to the 
poor. 

c Ch. 12 : G. 

lingering in the company of the disci- 
ples, and pretending to innocence by 
joining in the general inquiry Lord, is 
it I? is here exposed and reproved. He 
goes forth fully aware that to Jesus, at 
least, his whole heart lies bare ; and 
thus he performs his deed of treachery 
in the direct face of new evidence from 
the omniscience of our Lord, that he 
was the Son of God. 

28. John had given no intimation to 
Peter of the reply of our Lord in answer 
to his question ; and as both he and Ju- 
das reclined near to Jesus, their conver- 
sation with him was carried on in such 
low tones, that the disciples were not 
aware of what had passed between them. 
Hence no man at the table (i. e. not even 
John who knew the traitor, but had re- 
ceived no intimation that the deed 
was to be so quickly done) knew for what 
intent (i. e. in reference to what thing), he 
spake this unto him. Some would explain 
it no man (except John), his exclusion 
from the number who were ignorant of 
our Lord's meaning, being readily sug- 
gested to the reader by what is recorded 
in vs. 25, 26. So Stier remarks : " It must 
be assumed that no man knew or observ- 
ed any thing, save John, who as the re- 
porter of this ignorance excepts himself, 
as having known." But it is more natu- 
ral to suppose that John did not under- 
stand the import of our Lord's direction 
to Judas, and was ignorant of the intent 
with which the traitor rose up and went 
out so suddenly. Such was his love and 
zeal for his Master, that he would hardly 
have permitted him to leave unmolested, 
had he known the purpose for which he 
went forth. 

29. This verse stands connected with 
the preceding context, as furnishing, in 
part at least, the reason why they did 
not discern the import of the direction 



324 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



30 He then, having received 



given by Jesus to the traitor. They 
•were under the impression, that it was 
in some way connected with the pur- 
chase of things necessary to the proper 
celebration of the feast, or to provide 
alms for the poor, and they gave it at 
that time no further thought. Hence 
the betrayal of the Lord in the garden, 
came upon them as suddenly and unex- 
pectedly, as though they had received 
no warning whatever of the treachery 
of Judas. His continued absence on 
so solemn an occasion, may have been 
noticed, but as in so large a number of 
persons, some one or more must have 
frequently been absent in the trans- 
action of items of business, and that 
too for some time, it doubtless did not 
cause much if any surprise. The bag. 
See. JST. on 12: 6. Had said, i. e. had 
meant by Avhat he said. Buy those 
things that toe have need of. The 
words those things, need not have been 
italicized in our version, the literal 
translation being, buy what toe have 
need of. This shows beyond question, 
that Jesus was now celebrating the 
feast of the Passover. If it was neces- 
sary to make further provision for the 
present feast, or bestow gifts upon the 
poor as a part of the offerings of the 
festival, there was a reason why Judas 
should do quickly what was intrusted 
to his charge The feast Avould soon be 
over, and unless supplies were season- 
ably procured, they would be of no use. 
But not so, if the passover feast was to be 
celebrated on the evening of the follow- 
ing day. There would be no need of 
haste to make provisions for its celebra- 
tion, or indeed that Judas should leave 
the company at this time. In regard to 
the lateness of the hour, which it might 
be supposed would have prevented 
their mistaking the purpose for which 
Judas went forth, Stier agrees Avith 
Tholuck, that " their suppositions were 
confused and distracted." There was left 
them no other solution of the words of 
Jesus and the hasty withdrawal of Judas 
from the company. Although the hour 
of the feast was somewhat advanced, yet 



the sop, went immediately out; 
and it was night. 

nothing was more natural than for them 
to connect the command of Jesus and 
the departure of Judas with something 
pertaining to its celebration. Give 
something to the poor. Alford thinks 
that this gift to the poor might be some- 
thing to help them procure their pas- 
chal lamb. But this is based on the 
mistaken notion, that our Lord antici- 
pated the proper time of celebrating the 
Passover. Besides, as has been remark- 
ed, there would hardly be any necessity 
of haste, if Judas was supposed to have 
gone forth to procure something for the 
celebration of a feast which was to take 
place nearly twenty-four hours after- 
wards. 

30. The conviction that Jesus was 
fully acquainted with his treacherous de- 
signs,and his apprehension that he would 
be exposed to the other disciples, to- 
gether with a new and more fierce 
assault of Satan upon his integrity, put 
an end to the vacillating purpose of 
Judas, and he immediately went forth 
on his mission of evil. There was 
probably the lapse of a few moments 
only, between the giving of the sop 
and our Lord's words in v. 27. Un- 
der the sudden impulse of rage, and 
perhaps of despair that he could ever 
regain his Lord's love and confidence, 
he went forth to consummate his 
dark design, yet with such an entire 
control over his external movements, 
that none of the disciples had any sus- 
picion of the foul deed which he had 
gone forth to perpetrate. It tvas night. 
Olshausen remarks that these words 
arouse in the reader a reflection on the 
affinity between the deed of Judas and 
the time and hour. Tholuck remarks, 
however, that had the Evangelist de- 
signed this, he certainly would have 
used the word darkness, instead of night. 
Stier remarks upon this criticism, that 
the word darkness, was not needful, 
night here intimating the coincidence 
between external and internal darkness. 
" It was night in the soul of Judas, and 
by this fearful word the Evangelist dis- 
misses him into the darkness without, 



A.D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIII. 



325 



31 Therefore, when lie was gone 
out, Jesus said, d Now is the Son 

d Ch. 12 : 23. 

with the yet deeper and move veal night 
in his own spirit." Alfovd thinks that 
all which is intended here, is to bring 
all the events detailed in this chapter 
and onward to 18 : 3, into precision, 
as happening on one and the same 
night. At the same time he feels with 
Meyer, that there is something awful in 
this termination — it was night. In view 
of all these opinions, I have come to the 
conclusion that it is a part of the histo- 
ry of the transaction, and not to be re- 
garded as a reflection on the part of 
John of the srate of the traitor's mind, 
or that the night was symbolical of the 
night which was in his spirit. The pass- 
over feast could not be prolonged after 
midnight. It was therefore at some pe- 
riod previous to this time that the be- 
trayer went forth ; and if the view is 
correct that lie retired before the institu- 
tion of the Eucharist and the discourse 
of our Lord which followed that rite, he 
must have gone forth at least some two 
hours or more before the middle of 
the night. This would also be a more 
seasonable time to communicate with 
the rulers and priests, and arrange the 
plan for apprehending Jesus, than would 
have been a later hour in the night. 

31. The word rendered therefore, is 
omitted in some old MSS. and Versions, 
which has led some critics to connect 
the words when he was gone, or when he 
ivcnt forth, with the preceding clause, 
and it was night. But the abruptness, 
with which the following words Jesus 
said, would then begin, seems so harsh 
and unlike the easy and well-chosen 
connectives with which John unites the 
parts of his narrative, that I cannot 
doubt for a moment that the reading 
and punctuation, as it stands in our 
common version, is the correct one. It 
should be remembered, however, that 
the division of verses is not the work of 
the writers of the New Testament, but 
of a printer in the sixteenth century, and 
therefore entitled to little or no con- 
sideration in determining the construc- 
tion or sense of any given passage. The 



of man glorified, and e God is 
glorified in him. 

eCb. 14:13;1 Pe. 4:11. 

illative therefore, introduces this excla- 
mation of our Lord in regard to his ap- 
proaching glorification, as the conse- 
quence of w r hat has just been related, 
that Judas had gone forth to betray 
him to death. It did not daunt or dis- 
turb the composure of our Lord. It 
rather filled his soul with holy joy, that 
the great conflict in which he was to 
gain the victory over sin and death, was 
so near at hand. When he was gone 
out, and our Lord was relieved of his 
presence. His defection had given Je- 
sus great pain. But he had left no 
means apparently untried, to reclaim 
him from his purpose. He had uttered 
the most solemn and awful warning of 
the doom of the one who should betray 
him (Luke 22 : 22). He had sought to 
melt his obdurate heart, by washing his 
feet in common with those of the disci- 
ples who remained faithful to him. His 
position at the table was near to him, if 
not the one next to him on the side op- 
posite to that occupied by John. But 
all these efforts had failed to move him 
from his dark purpose ; and when he had 
closed his soul against every heavenly in- 
fluence, and given himself up to be fully 
possessed by Satan, it could not but have 
been a great relief to Jesus, when he was 
rid of his presence. As soon as the door 
had closed on Judas, he seems to have 
broken forth in the words of triumph 
and joy which are here recorded. Now 
is the Son of man, &c. Here commences 
what Olshausen so beautifully and fitly 
terms, the holy of holies. His remarks 
on this portion are so fine, that I cannot 
forbear to quote them : " These were 
the last moments which the Lord spent 
in the midst of his own before his pas- 
sion — and words full of heavenly mean- 
ing flow r ed during them from his holy 
lips: — all that his heart, glowing Avith 
love, had yet to say to his own, was com- 
pressed in this short space of time. At first 
the conversation with his disciples takes 
more the form of usual dialogue ; reclin- 
ing at the table they mournfully reply 
to and question him. But when (14 : 31) 



326 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



32 / If God be glorified in Mm, 
G-od shall also glorify him in him- 

/ Ch. IT : 1, 4, 5, 6. 



they had risen from the supper, the dis- 
course of Christ took a higher form : sur- 
rounding their Master, the disciples lis- 
tened to the Words of Life and seldom 
spoke (only 16 : 17, 29). Finally in the 
sublime prayer of the great High Priest, 
the whole soul of Christ flowed forth in 
earnest intercession for his own to his 
Heavenly Father." Now. The work had 
actually commenced. Judas had gone 
forth, and the powers of evil were mar- 
shalled for the conflict. Is the Son of 
man glorified. The verb in the original 
is in the aorist or past time, the glorifi- 
cation being regarded as already com- 
pleted. This is in accordance with the 
vivid style of prophecy, in which future 
events of certain fulfilment pass before 
the eye, as having already taken place. 
" The momentary force of the aorist ex- 
presses yet more forcibly than the per- 
fect, the inevitable, and as it were in- 
stantaneous development of that which 
is yet future." Kiihner. The glorifi- 
cation here spoken of, while it em- 
braces in its highest and most enlarged 
sense, the glorification of Christ in heav- 
en as King and Head over all things to 
the church (Eph. 1 : 22), has specific ref- 
erence to glorification by the death of 
the cross. It was this mainly by which 
his heavenly exaltation was effected, 
and the first step in the process implies 
the full completion of the glorious re- 
sult. That Christ's sufferings and death 
are here referred to, is evident from the 
emphatic now, of this verse. The refer- 
ence in 12 : 24, to the decay of a corn 
of wheat in the process of germination, 
by which was illustrated the glorifica- 
tion of the Son of man spoken of in the 
preceding verse, shows that this was not 
the consummation and perfection of his 
heavenly glory, but the entering upon 
that state through his predestined suffer- 
ings and death for our race. God is glo- 
rified in him. This glorification of the 
Son of man, was not his apart from the 
glorification which should accrue to the 
Father in him. The glory of the one is 
that of the other. Yet we are to no- 



self, and 
rify him. 



shall straightway glo- 



g Ch. 12 : 23. 



tice the fact, that God is not here said 
to be glorified through, but in the 
Son of man. God was in Christ re- 
conciling the world unto Himself (2 
Cor. 5 : 19). He was glorified in the 
whole life of Jesus, and especially in his 
obedience unto death, even the death 
of the cross (Phil. 2 : 8). Christ came 
not to do his own will, but the will of 
Him that sent him (see 6 : 38). Hence 
in his whole life, as the Son of man, he 
was continually revealing the power 
and glory of the Father (see 1 : 18). But 
in reference to this passage, which thus 
incidentally covers the whole previous 
life of Jesus, we must not lose sight, 
that both the glorification of the Son of 
man, and that of God the Father in 
him, have special reference here to that 
which had now actually commenced in 
the going forth of Judas, namely, his 
sufferings and death on the cross. This 
was his crowning glory as the Son 
of man, and in this great propitiatory 
sacrifice which he made of himself for 
the sins of men, the Father also re- 
ceived the highest glory. 

32. The sentiment of this verse is, 
that if God has thus been glorified in 
the obedience, sufferings, and death of 
Christ, He will not fail to give glory to 
the Son. That a new and more exalted 
state of glorification is here referred 
to, there can be no doubt. It is repre- 
sented as directly conferred upon 
Jesus by God, and so conferred that 
the glory shall be his own, existing 
in himself, and not the reflection of 
that which belongs to another. Thus 
was it with Jesus, whose resurrection 
from the dead and ascension into heav- 
en followed his glorification by death 
on the cross, and constituted that high 
condition to which he was exalted at 
the right hand of God, far above all 
principality, and power, and might, and 
dominion, and every name that is named 
not only in this world, but also in that 
which is to come, all things being put 
under his feet, and it having been given 
him to be Head over all things to the 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAFTER XIII. 



32-7 



7iCh. 



54 : & 8: 21. 



33 Little children, yet a little ' Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot 
while I am with you. Ye shall come ; so now I say to yon. 
seek me ; h and as I said unto the 

church (Eph. 1 : 20, 22). This was his 
glorification in God ; as God in his life, 
sufferings, and death on earth, had been 
glorified in him. On earth he had been 
manifested as the Son of man ac- 
quainted with sorrows and grief. His 
divine nature had been hidden from 
the human eye. But now he was to be 
declared the Son of God with power, 
according to the spirit of holiness, by 
the resurrection from the dead (Rom. 
1 : 4). The simple sentiment then of this 
sublime passage is, that as God was 
glorified in Jesus Christ as the Son of 
man, especially in his obedience to the 
death of the cross ; so was Jesus to be 
glorified in God, by his resurrection 
from the dead, to a state of exaltation 
at His right hand. Both these states 
of our Lord's glorification were at hand. 
In a few hours he was to be nailed 
to the cross, and to experience the 
mysterious agony in full degree, which 
had previously bowed him to the dust 
in Gethsemane. Close upon that awful 
scene, were to follow his resurrection 
from the dead and his ascension into 
heaven. In view of the near approach of 
this final close of his earthly ministry 
and consequent exaltation at God's 
right hand, suggested by the with- 
drawal of the traitor Judas, our Lord 
could not repress his joyous emotions, 
but gave them utterance to the as- 
tonished ear of his disciples. 

This twofold glorification of Jesus, as 
the Son of man on earth, in which con- 
dition of humiliation God also was 
glorified in him ; and as the Son of 
God in his state of exaltation in heaven, 
in which he is glorified in God, is clear- 
ly brought out in the tenses of the 
verbs here made use of. The verb be 
glorified, like that of which it is the 
repetition in v. 31, is the aorist, but 
not the aorist of anticipation, or the 
prophetic future (see Note on is glori- 
fied, in v. 21), but is to be taken in its 
usual aoristic or past signification. 
"When God shall glorify the Son in 
himself, the glorification of God in the 



Son is considered as past and finished. 
The earthly career of Jesus is ended. 
He has finished the work which was 
given him to do (17 : 4). He has bowed 
his head in death. The grave has re- 
| ceived him. Now the second act in 
; the drama of man's redemption begins, 
; and Jesus, declared by his resurrection 
| from the dead and ascension into 
heaven, to be the Son of God with pow- 
er (Rom. 1 : 4), shall enter upon that 
state of ineffable glory and blessed- 
ness, which is here referred to in the 
■ words, shall also glorify him in himself 
j (i. e. in God). And shall straightway (i. 
I e. immediately) glorify him. This final 
j glorification, although subsequent to 
that which was first to be experienced 
by our Lord in his sufferings and death, 
was yet close at hand. The form of 
expression in the original, is very pecu- 
| liar and emphatic. We should naturally 
[ suppose it would be, and he shall 
; straightway do this. But the repetition 
| of the verb glorify, gives emphatic 
\ prominence not only to the idea rcpre- 
i sented by straightway, but to the act 
I of glorification thus repeated in the 
{ verb. It is as though our Lord dis- 
cerned such bliss in this state of glorifi- 
cation, that he loved to dwell upon the 
word by which it was expressed. 

33. Having indulged in the joyous 
and triumphal rhapsody occasioned by 
the departure of Judas, our Lord now 
in the most tender and consoling lan- 
guage addresses his disciples. The 
phrase little children, occurs only here 
in the Gospels, although it is several 
times found in the first Epistle of John, 
and once in Gal. 4: 19. It is a term of 
familiar endearment, but differing some- 
what from friends (15 : 15), in that it 
suggests the idea of weakness, depend- 
ence, and comparative ignorance of 
the sublime mysteries which he was 
now unfolding. The epithet friends, 
conveys the idea of equality, confiden- 
tial intercourse, and is given to these 
weak disciples in 15 : 15, in contrast 
with the idea of servitude and slavish 



328 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



34 *'A new commandment I 

iLe. 19:18; eh. 15: 12, IT; Ep. 5:2; 1 Th. 4: 

9 : Ja. 2 : 8 ; 1 Pe. 1 : 22 ; 1 Jo. 2: 7, 8 ; & 3 : 11, 

23; &4:21. 



dependence implied in the word ser- 
vants. Yet a little while, &c. This 
declaration, which twice before in a dif- 
ferent connection (7 : 34 ; 8 : 21) he had 
made to the unbelieving Jews, he re- 
peats now to the disciples, in order to 
fully apprise them, that they were soon 
to be deprived of his presence and 
counsel. Ye shall seek me, i. e. you 
shall feel the want of me. To this 
expression in 7 : 34, is appended, " and 
shall not find me ; " and in 8 : 21, "ye 
shall die in your sins." Neither of 
these clauses are here found, and the 
implication of this omission is that, 
though the Saviour's visible and bodily 
presence is so withdrawn, that they can 
no longer see him and lean upon him 
for support in times of trial ; yet this 
separation will only be a temporary 
one, and their seeking him will result 
in the end in their finding him, and 
again rejoicing in his presence and love. 
As I said unto the Jews, &c. It was in 
one sense as impossible for the disciples 
to follow and find Jesus, as for the un- 
believing Jews. He was about to enter 
heaven through the portal of suffering 
and death. To that place of bliss and 
glory, the Jews with their proud heart 
of unbelief could never come. Nor 
could his disciples, however much and 
earnestly they might desire it, be re- 
united to him in his heavenly abode, 
until their work on earth was ended. 
Their exclusion from his presence was 
not however permanent, as in the case 
of the Jews, but temporary (see 14 : 3). 
Hence during their separation from 
him, they are commanded to practise 
towards one another all the kind offices 
of brotherly love, and thus patiently 
to await the time when they shall all be 
reunited again in his presence above. 
This renders the connection with the 
following verse natural and apparent. 

34. The connection with the preced- 
ing context has been hinted at. Christ 
was soon to leave his disciples. For a 
time they were to be deprived of his 



give unto you, That ye love one 
another ; as I have loved you, 
that ye also love one another. 

bodily presence. This would afflict 
them with grief. But they would 
nevertheless enjoy his spiritual pres- 
ence ; and nothing w r ould give them 
greater assurance of this, than their 
love to one another as constituting the 
family of the redeemed on earth. A 
new commandment, &c. It was so called 
from being the first and principal one 
given under the Christian dispensation, 
and refers to a love unique, simple, self- 
renouncing, and ever fresh, like that 
which Jesus had manifested towards 
them. The preceptive form of the 
commandment in the Old Testament 
dispensation, was to love one's neigh- 
bor as one's self (Levit, 19 : 18). This 
was an obligation universal and general ; 
but that which our Lord here enjoins is 
special and particular. However strange 
and incredible ma} 7 appear this Christian 
grace of brotherly love, to such as have 
had no experience of its presence and 
power, yet to those whose hearts have 
been thus drawn out to one another, it 
is as much a matter of conscious knowl- 
edge as their own existence. Power- 
ful as may be the restraints imposed on 
every outward expression of feeling, by 
the artificial rules and usages of social 
intercourse which from time to time may 
prevail in the community, there will not 
be wanting occasions, when the love here 
enjoined in this new commandment will 
so manifest itself, that the world will 
be constrained to say, as in the early 
days of Christianity, "see how these 
Christians love one another ! " As 1 
have loved you. This pattern and 
measure of their love, was what made 
it peculiar to the new dispensation. 
The clause that ye also (as. I have loved 
you) love one another, is an emphatic 
repetition of the sentiment previously 
expressed, and hence Stier errs in 
giving to the second that, the sense of 
in order that. Such emphatic repeti- 
tions are quite common in the Evange- 
lists, and especially in John's gospel. 
It is thought by many that at this 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIII. 



329 



85 * By tliis shall all men know 
that ye are ray disciples, if ye 
have love one to another. 

36 Simon Peter said unto him, 
Lord, whither goest thou? Je- 

£1 Jo. 2:5; & 4: 20. 

particular point of time in the feast, the 
Eucharist was instituted and ordained. 
It will be noticed, and it is an omission 
that has excited great wonder and led 
to various conjectures as to the ground 
of it, that John has made no mention 
whatever of the establishment of the 
Lord's Supper. Our limits are too pre- 
scribed, and the consideration of other 
and more practical topics too pressing, 
to spend time upon a point, which after 
all that may be said, must be left very 
nearly where we found it. It is suffi- 
cient to remark, that John, who had 
the Synoptic Gospels before him, per- 
ceiving that they all contained the ac- 
count of the institution of the Eucha- 
rist, and that too with sufficient parti- 
cularity and clearness, passed it over in 
silence, and records at length the warn- 
ings, exhortations, instructions, and 
consolations, with which the institution 
and celebration of this rite was accom- 
panied. In almost every verse of this 
great sacramental discourse of our 
Lord, and the prayer with which it was 
closed, there is to be found evidence 
more or less direct, of the establish- 
ment of just such an institution as we 
find recorded in the other Evangelists, 
and which we denominate the Lord's 
Supper. Indeed from no other stand- 
point than that feast of love, can Ave ar- 
rive at the full meaning of portions of 
this farewell discourse of Jesus. In 
short, there is abundant internal evi- 
dence that our Lord pronounced this 
discourse at the Eucharistic table, and 
that the Evangelist, while he has him- 
self omitted to record the establish- 
ment of this sacrament, fully recognizes 
the great fact as recorded by the other 
Evangelists. 

35. The observance of this new com- 
mandment, would not only serve to se- 
cure and perpetuate the Saviour's spir- 
itual presence with his disciples, but 



sus answered him, Whither I go, 
thou canst not follow me now; 
but l thou shalt follow me after- 
wards. 

I Ch. 21 : IS ; 2 Pe. 1 : 14. 

evince to the world around, that they 
were his disciples, as really and truly 
so after his death, as when he was on 
earth with them. As a historical fact, 
there has been no feature of Chris- 
tianity exemplified in the life and con- 
duct of believers, so potent in meeting 
and overcoming opposition to its great 
doctrines and precepts, as the love 
which the disciples of Jesus in all times 
and countries have borne to one anoth- 
er. There has been something so 
heavenly, so pure, so unlike all the self- 
ish, insincere, and heartless professions 
of love wdiieh characterize to a great 
degree all worldly intercourse, that 
men have been allured to examine the 
principles of that religion, which works 
out such astonishing results in cement- 
ing the hearts of believers in brotherly 
love. It is found by them on examina- 
tion, that as Christ himself was an ex- 
ample of every thing lovely and unself- 
ish, so his followers possess the same 
spirit of disinterested love and self-re- 
nouncement which he exhibited, and 
are therefore what they profess to be, 
his obedient and loving disciples. Thus 
the gospel secures its achievements and 
triumphs, Christ is honored, the church 
enjoys his spiritual presence, and men 
are brought to embrace a religion, the 
foundation commandment of which is 
the brotherly love here enjoined by our 
Lord upon all his followers. 

36-38. Jesus foretells the fall 
of Peter and the dispersion of the 
Twelve. Jerusalem. Evening intro- 
ducing the sixth day of the Week. 

36. Peter with his characteristic for- 
wardness and curiosity, now inquires 
whither it is that Jesus is going. The 
question however implies more than is 
expressed in words. It conveys an in- 
timation that Peter and his fellow dis- 
ciples w T ould not forsake him, but if 
needs be, would die in his behalf, or at 



330 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



37 Peter said unto him, Lord, 
why cannot I follow thee now ? 
I will m lay down my life for thy 
sake. 



mlt. 26: 



}, 84, 35; Ma. 14:29,80, 81: 
22 : 83, 34. 



Lu. 



least would lay down their lives with 
him, so that death itself should not 
separate them from one whom they so 
much loved. That it savored of for- 
wardness and self-presumption is evi- 
dent from the next verse, where Peter 
presses the inquiry, wherefore they 
cannot accompany him now, adding 
the boastful pledge that he at least will 
lay down his life for his Master's sake. 
Alas! that in the truthful history of 
this eventful crisis of human redemp- 
tion, we should be obliged to follow this 
noble-spirited but presumptuous fol- 
lower of Jesus to a defection, which, 
but for the sovereign grace of God, 
would have consigned him to the fel- 
lowship of Judas, rather than to that 
of James, and John, and the other dis- 
ples who remained true to Jesus. Tliou 
canst not follow me noio, i. e. ' thou must 
remain still longer on earth. There is 
yet a service for you to perform, which 
will prevent your accompanying me 
now to the place whither I go.' A re- 
currence to v. 33, will show that our 
Lord's reply is a repetition of what is 
there expressed. The now in that 
verse, which was in part concealed by 
its adverbial relation to say, is here re- 
peated by a now of stronger import in 
the original, and in a position more em- 
phatic. Upon this word then lies the 
stress of the reply, and strongly con- 
trasted with it, is afterwards, in the 
next clause. Expositors are agreed 
that the following words, thou slialt fol- 
low me afterwards, are an intimation, 
that Peter in due time shall follow his 
Master by a similar death of martyr- 
dom. There is no doubt that Peter 
thus understood his Lord's words, and 
that in the ardor and impetuosity of 
his love, he inquires why he cannot 
thus follow him at the present time. 
No one can doubt the sincerity of his 
heart in proposing this inquiry. He 



38 Jesus answered him, Wilt 
thou lay down thy life for my 
sake ? Verily, verily, I say unto 
thee, The cock shall not crow, 
till thou hast denied me thrice. 



felt willing to suffer obloquy, shame, 
and death, for one whom he so much 
loved. But he mistook his strength of 
purpose. He knew not the full mean- 
ing of the great declaration, thou shalt 
follow me afterwards. He overlooked 
the necessity of preparation by a life 
of labor and self-denial, for this future 
experience of death in behalf of Jesus, 
and thought only of that physical cour- 
age, which he felt conscious that he 
possessed in a degree sufficient to jus- 
tify his assertion, that he was ready to 
lay down his life for his Master's sake. 
It is evident from this passage in its 
connection, and also from Luke 22 : 33, 
that Peter thought our Lord's death 
was referred to in what had just been 
said. 

37. This verse in its connection has 
been explained in the preceding com- 
ment. Why or for what reason. Peter 
is apprehensive that his physical cour- 
age, as well as his devotion to his Mas- 
ter, is doubted. His whole thought con- 
centrates upon the words thou canst not 
(i. e. art not able), which were so repug- 
nant to his natural intrepidity and im- 
petuosity. He pauses not to make more 
particular inquiry as to the meaning of 
Jesus, but in boastful and extravagant 
terms, although with the utmost sincer- 
ity, professes his readiness to die for 
him. Stier finds a resemblance in Pe- 
ter's why cannot I follow thee ? with the 
we are able, of the sons of Zebedee, in 
Matt. 20 : 22. There was doubtless 
much presumption and self-confidence, 
at this time, in all his disciples. See 
Matt. 26:35; Mark 14: 31. 

38. Wilt thou lay doivn thy life for 
my saJce ? The construction of the ori- 
ginal is more emphatic, thy life for me 
wilt thou lay down? This places in 
strong contrast his boasted readiness< 
to lay down his life, and his awful de- 
fection in regard to so small a matter, as 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIY. 



331 



the public acknowledgment that he 
knew Jesus (see Luke 22 : 34). The 
assertion of our Lord is, that so far from 
being willing to die for him, he would 
deny all knowledge of him, and that 
too in thrice repeated and most em- 
phatic language. Stier gives this turn 
to the question : ' Wilt thou lay down 
thy life for me? Hast thou reached 
that point? Simon, Simon (Luke 22: 
31), bethink thyself who thou art and 
how it stands with you all — Satan hath 
desired to have you.' Webster and 
Wilkinson find a gentle irony in this 
question of our Lord, but the occasion 
was too solemn to admit of this in the 
least degree. The inquiry was simply 
designed to bring out in strong rhetori- 
cal contrast Peter's boastful words, and 
the predicted fact, that he would that 
very night be guilty of a persistent de- 
nial of his Master. The cod: shall not 
croic, kc. See Ns. on Matt. 26 : 34; 
Mark 14 : 30 ; Luke 22 : 34. This ref- 
erence to the cock-crowing, connects 
the whole discourse with the time of 
night referred to in v. 30. 

CHAPTERS XIY.-XYI. 

These chapters contain what may be 
termed the farewell discourse of Jesus 
to his disciples, and in the best Harmo- 
nies of the Gospels, are placed directly 
after the institution of the Lord's sup- 
per. Whether the Eucharist took place 
immediately after the announcement 
of Peters denial of his Lord, or imme- 
diately preceding that incident, is of 
little comparative importance, and 
probably will never be definitely set- 
tled by harmonists. But one thing is 
very clear, and that is, that the dis- 
course which here follows, was pro- 
nounced at the table, and in view of the 
affecting scene which had just been en- 
acted in the establishment of this Chris- 
tian ordinance. In some respects it 
has peculiar characteristics, much like 
John's Epistles, especially the first one, 
being full of love and tenderness, while 
at the same time it has a spirituality 
and power, which evinces that the 
words are His "who spake as never 
man spake." It possesses all the traits 
of a free and unrestrained conversa- 



} tional discourse, and hence is less se- 
; verely logical than one more public 
and formal. Indeed some of its grand- 
est truths and revelations, such as the 
promise of the Spirit, his glorification 
and union with the Father, are inter- 
fused and blended together, in a manner 
quite desultory, and yet perfectly in 
keeping with the familiar and colloquial 
style, in which he was addressing for 
the last time his beloved disciples. 

Xot withstanding this somewhat dis- 
cursive freedom in the arrangement 
of the topics of this discourse, yet 
there are distinct and well-defined di- 
visions, or, as Stier designates them, 
corresponding masses of thought, which 
will assist us much in the exposition 
of its subordinate parts. The first 
of these great heads or divisions, is 
an exhortation to unwavering faith 
in God and his Son Jesus Christ ; 
the second relates to the mutual love 
which should subsist between his disci- 
ples, as springing from love to him 
with whom they are in vital connection, 
as the branch is united to the vine ; 
the third is a definite revelation of that 
which shall result from his departure. 
These great truths are blended and inter- 
woven together in the true style of famil- 
iar conversation ; and interspersed with 
i them are other revelations, predictions, 
i and promises, one of the most impor- 
tant of which is the promise of the Com- 
j forter (14 : 26 ; 15 : 26, 27 ; 16 : 7), who 
I is to teach them, give peace to them, 
■ vindicate the character of Jesus, con- 
vince the world of sin, and render effi- 
; cacious the means of salvation provid- 
ed in and through the death of Christ. 
Other great truths of this farewell dis- 
course will be more particularly revert- 
ed to, as they come up in the way of 
exposition. It hardly need be said that 
great difficulty attends the explanation 
of many passages, and it would not be 
strange, if the reader should find in my 
comments that from which, in the exer- 
cise of his own judgment, he may dis- 
sent. 

CHAPTER XIY. 

1-31. JeSES COMFORTS HIS DISCIPLES. 

The Holt Spirit promised. Jerusa- 
lem. Evening introducing the sixth 



332 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



CHAPTER XIY. 

LET a not your heart "be troub- 
led : ye believe in God, be- 
lieve also in me. 



daj 7 of the "Week. Bloomfield divides 
this chapter into three heads, vs. 1-4, 
consolation for impending affliction ; 
vs. 5-15, exhortation to faith in Christ; 
vs. 16-31, a promise of the Holy Spirit. 
Indeed love, faith, and the promised 
Spirit, are topics which underlie and 
pervade the whole discourse. This will 
appear more clearly in the exposition of 
its parts, upon which we shall now enter. 
1. Let not your heart, &c. The beau- 
ty and tenderness with which our Lord 
commences his farewell discourse, must 
be apparent to every reader, who en- 
ters at all into the circumstances of the 
occasion which gave rise to it. He 
had spoken of his separation from his 
disciples, and the great sufferings he 
was to undergo, before he could enter 
upon that high state of exaltation which 
was his as the promised Messiah. He 
had declared in the most explicit and 
affecting terms, that one of the Twelve 
whom he had chosen to the apostle- 
ship, was to betray him to his enemies. 
The disciples, although ignorant that 
on that very night he was to be appre- 
hended and tried before the Sanhedrim, 
and afterwards dragged before the tri- 
bunal of the Roman governor to he 
condemned to the cross, had sad fore- 
bodings that they were soon to be de- 
prived of his presence and instruction. 
This feeling of sadness was deepened 
by the terms in which the Lord's sup- 
per had just been instituted: this is my 
body (Matthew, Mark, Luke) ; this is 
my blood of the new testament which is 
shed for many (Matthew, Mark); this 
cup is the neio testament in my blood 
which is shed for you (Luke). Their 
downcast looks indicated their sorrow 
of heart. The hopes which had been 
inspired by his triumphal entry into the 
city, that his Messiahship would be ac- 
knowledged by the nation, and that the 
days of his humble, unpretentious life 
Avere now to be followed by the pomp 
and splendor which prophecy had at- 



2 In my Father's house are 
many mansions : if it ivere not 

a Yer. 27 ; ch. 16 : 3, 22. 

tached to the Messianic reign, were all 
crushed and dissipated. Darkness rest- 
ed upon the future. They had not 
whither to look for hope or comfort. 
Our Lord, after a suitable pause, as we 
may suppose, addresses them in this 
tender, soothing, cheering language : 
' Ld not your heart be troubled. Be not 
sad or disturbed in your heart. Ye be- 
lieve in God. You have unshaken con- 
fidence in the existence of God, and 
that all things are subject to his provi- 
dence and control. Believe also in me. 1 
He thus reminds them of the essential 
unity between him and the Father, 
which renders the belief in one, a rea- 
son why a like confidence should be en- 
tertained towards the other. Special 
reference is had here to belief in his 
Messiahship, w r hich was now to be so 
severely tested by the depth of humili- 
ation and suffering, to which in accord- 
ance with the economy of redemption, 
he was about to descend. Consistency 
required them to place the same confi- 
dence in him which they did in God, 
since he had given them the most in- 
dubitable evidence, that he had been 
sent of God, and indeed that he was 
God's Son. In the original, the verbs 
are in the same mood, but the form is 
such that they may be translated as 
imperatives or indicatives. Some trans- 
late them both as imperatives, believe 
in God, believe also in me. Such is the 
view of Stier, Tholuck, Alford, and 
some others. This deprives the pas- 
sage of its force and pertinency, for 
they had given no evidence of having 
lost their confidence in God. But their 
saddened countenances indicated such 
dejection of spirit, as would naturally 
result from a weakened faith in him as 
their Messiah ; and hence in the very 
commencement of his discourse, he 
cautions them to maintain their confi- 
dence in him firm to the end. They 
believed in God. They were also to 
believe in him. They were as soon to 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIV. 



333 



so, I would have told you. b I 
go to prepare a place for you. 

doubt the power, goodness, and vera- 
city of Jehovah himself, as that of his 
Son whom he had sent into the world 
for the redemption of man. This is ev- 
idently the true exposition. That the 
employment of the same verbal form 
in two different moods in the same sen- 
tence, is somewhat unusual we will not 
deny ; but as Webster and Wilkinson 
remark, this is not of much weight, if 
we are satisfied, that the construction 
and context are greatly in favor of the 
indicative in the first, and the impera- 
tive in the second member. The de- 
sign in employing the very same verb 
and in precisely the same modal form 
in both clauses, seems to have been to 
give emphasis to the idea of the essential 
unity of Jesus Christ with God, so that 
faith in him was only the more full 
and perfect development of faith in 
God, or in other words, that faith in 
the one implied faith also in the other. 
2. Having thus prefaced his discourse 
by exhorting them to put their trust in 
him as in God, he goes on to show the 
necessity of his temporary separation 
from them, in order to make prepa- 
ration for their reception to bliss when 
called to follow him. In my Father's 
house. The word Father, is henceforth 
employed throughout the whole dis- 
course, for God hi the first verse. House 
is here put for heaven. See Ps. 33 : 13, 
14; Isa. 63 : 15. The word rendered 
mansions, literally signifies, dwelling- 
places, abodes. The word many, does 
not refer to or imply sameness of de- 
gree, in regard to the happiness or dig- 
nity of the blessed, but simply, that 
there is room for all Christ's follow- 
ers in the presence of his Father. In 
beautiful harmony with this sentiment, 
we may refer to Luke 14 : 22 ; 2 Cor. 
5 : 1-3 ; 2 Pet, 1:11. But the ques- 
tion may arise v/hy he employs the 
word many, which so far transcends the 
number of dwelling-places requisite for 
the disciples who were then gathered 
around him. The question implies a 
gross conception of the whole subject. 
No reference whatever is made in the 



3 And if I go and prepare a 

o Ch. 13 : 33, 36. 



passage to material abodes or to dwell- 
ings, one of which was to be assigned 
to each disciple. The simple idea couch- 
ed under this figurative language, is 
that there will be abundance of room in 
heaven for all the redeemed, so that 
none need fear that the provisions of 
grace will not prove adequate, even 
though the whole human family accept- 
ed the offers of salvation, and were to 
be received into heaven. Olshausen 
refers this declaration in my Father's 
house, &c, only to the transition state of 
believers, as " at the resurrection, all 
souls will return to the glorified earth, 
and heaven itself will dwell upon it." 
But a return from those heavenly man- 
sions in the house of the Father to 
this world, would be a descent both in 
dignity and bliss, which we do not be- 
lieve will ever befall those who have 
been redeemed by the blood of Christ, 
and concerning whom he says, "Father 
I will that they also whom thou hast 
given me be with me where I am, that 
they may behold my glory which thou 
hast given me." The notion that the 
mansions here spoken of are the plan- 
ets and fixed stars, where the souls of 
the pious are to be distributed, which 
Olshausen refers to as broached in a 
modern theory of the universe, is too 
fanciful and unsupported by Scripture 
to need a labored refutation. The lan- 
guage of Revelation is very simple and 
perspicuous on this point. The saints 
are to dwell with God in heaven, where 
Christ also is to be, with whom they 
will enjoy the most ineffable bliss, 
and from whom they will never be 
separated. That there will be the most 
enlarged freedom of movement and 
power to visit and explore the various 
parts of Jehovah's dominions, there 
can be no doubt. But heaven will 
be the home to which the saints will 
ever return, to gain fresh strength 
and joy in the presence of Him whom 
they will never cease to adore as their 
God and Saviour. 

If it were not so ; literally, if not, i. e. 
otherwise, had it not been so, I would 



834 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



place for you, c I will come again, 
and receive you unto myself; 

c Y. IS, 23 ; Ac. 1 : 11. 

have told you. He would not have ex- 
cited their hopes, had there been no 
ground of assurance, that they would 
be admitted by the Father to share 
in the glory and blessedness which 
awaited his return to heaven. The 
language is that of the most tender as- 
surance, and is just such as would nat- 
urally be addressed to a group of per- 
sons, who, in regard to the spiritual 
comprehension of the great truths and 
facts set before them, were yet as little 
children (see 13 : 33). I go to prepare 
a place for you. The simple idea is 
that Christ by his death was to make 
such an expiation for sin, that believ- 
ers would have access to the glory 
and blessedness of heaven, from which 
otherwise they must have been forever 
excluded. He therefore kindly pleads 
the necessity of making provision for 
their future welfare, as the reason why 
he must for a short time leave them. 
We must guard against so material- 
izing this great utterance, as to refer it 
to actual dwelling-places like our earthly 
homes. See 2 Cor. 5 : 1-4. But while 
we should exclude from our concep- 
tions of heaven every thing gross or ma- 
terial, yet we are warranted from this, 
and from other passages of God's 
word, as well as from the nature of the 
case, in connecting with it the notion of 
place in some part of Jehovah's do- 
minions. Where that place is, it were 
presumptuous and useless to inquire. 
It is sufficient for us to know, that it is 
where God reveals his presence, where 
Jesus our great Forerunner has gone, 
and where all believers shall be gathered 
in due time to enjoy his presence and 
love. 

3. The sentiment of this verse is, that 
if Jesus left his disciples for the purpose 
here made known, it would follow as an 
obvious inference, that he would return 
to conduct them to the seats of bliss 
thus provided for their reception. The 
words, if I go and prepare, are rendered 
by some, token I shall have gone and 
prepared ; but the original will not 



that d where I am, there ye may 
be also. 

d Ch. 12 : 26 ; & IT : 24 ; 1 Th. 4 : 17. 

admit this, nor would the meaning be 
so lively and expressive. There is no 
real contingency in the clause if I go, 
but only one assumed, for the sake of 
uniting with it in closer emphasis the 
consequence, I will come again. So Stier 
well remarks, that the if indicates a con- 
vincing inference : '■'•only for that purpose 
have I gone before, that I might return 
and take you to myself." I will come ; 
literally, I come, reference being had to a 
future event, but not directly, the idea 
being that of an act unalterably fixed 
and determined. I come in accordance 
with the great purposes of grace in the 
economy of redemption. In regard to 
this coming of Christ to take the be- 
liever to himself, commentators have 
been divided, as to whether it refers to 
the day of judgment, or to the day of 
each man's death. The ancient ex- 
positors and some of the modern ones, 
adopt the former of these views ; the 
majority of modern expositors, the lat- 
ter. It cannot be denied that Christ 
at the day of judgment will come to 
gather his elect into the kingdom pre- 
pared for them by his Father, in such a 
grand and sublime sense, that it can- 
not be applied, except in a subordinate 
way, to any other coining of his referred 
to in the New Testament. I cannot 
doubt that the coming here spoken 
of, is to be referred primarily to his 
great and final coming at the last day. 
In a subordinate sense, however, he 
comes to every believer at the hour of 
death (see N. on Matt. 24 : 44), and 
this coming is also included in the ex- 
pression taken in its most enlarged 
meaning. " Collectively, the promise 
refers to the day of judgment (1 Thess. 
4 : 16, 17); individually, to the day of 
death (2 Cor. 5 : 6-9 ; 1 Thess. 5:10; 
Ps. 49 : 15 ; 73 : 24)." Webster and 
Wilkinson. Olshausen remarks, that a 
comparison of 14 : 18, 2S ; 16 : 7, is suf- 
ficient to produce the conviction, that 
here we are to understand by come, 
the spiritual coming of Christ in the 
communication of his Spirit. But this 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIV. 



335 



4 And whither I go ye know, 
and the way ye know. 

5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, 

destroys the correspondence between 
the clauses, which evidently requires a 
personal return of Christ, if his previous 
departure was a personal one, as it really 
was. Alford takes it in a more general 
and enlarged sense of all our Lord's 
manifestations : " the coming again of 
the Lord is not one single act, — as 
his resurrection, or the descent of the 
Spirit, or his second personal advent, 
or the final coming to judgment ; but 
the great complex of all these, the result 
of which shall be his taking his people 
to himself to be where he is. The 
coming is begun (v. 18) in his Resurrec- 
tion — carried on (v. 23) in the spiritual 
life (see also 16 : 22 and following), 
the making them ready for the place 
prepared ; further advanced, when each 
by death is fetched away to be with 
Him (Phil. 1 : 23) ; fully completed at 
his coming in glory, when they shall 
forever be with him (1 Thess. 4: 17) 
in the perfected resurrection state." 
So also Stier refers this coming " to the 
whole of Christ's influence, drawing, 
setting free (12 : 32 ; 8 : 35, 36), be- 
ginning with the resurrection and end- 
ing in his final manifestation ; his en- 
tire work of bringing home and prepar- 
ing us for our place after the place is 
first prepared." But this is too diffuse 
and general to suit the wants of the 
passage, one distinct coming being 
evidently referred to, which as far as 
relates to each individual, is at the 
hour of his death, but in a collective 
sense, unquestionably referring to the 
coming of Christ at the day of judg- 
ment. Receive you to myself. These 
words are expressive of the most ten- 
der affection. The verb literally signi- 
fies to taTce to oneself, as a wife, an 
adopted son, a partner, helper, ally. 
This meaning of the verb is rendered 
still more emphatic, by the words unto 
myself imparting the idea of the closest 
and most inseparable union. That (so 
that) where I am, &c. His love will not 
permit them to be long separated from 
him. He will return and conduct them 



we know not whither thou goest ; 
and how can we know the way ? 



to the place of his glorified presence, and 
thenceforth where he is there shall they 
be. The collocation of the original is 
very emphatic, that where am I, also you 
may be. It was not without significancy 
that the pronouns /and you, were thus 
placed in juxtaposition. Shades of 
thought and degrees of emphasis are 
expressed in the Greek, which cannot 
be transferred into our language, with- 
out a cumbrous circumlocution. 

4. Whither I go ye knoiv. This is 
considered by expositors, not so much 
an assertion, as an assumption for the 
purpose of recalling to their mind his 
previous instruction, and exciting them 
to further inquiry. So Webster and 
Wilkinson. You know, i. e. you can- 
not help knowing, if you only call to 
mind what I have said on former occa- 
sions. The word rendered lohither, is 
literally, where, the idea of the place of 
rest after the verb of motion I go, being 
rendered predominant. Our Lord was 
soon to enter into his rest. The seat 
was prepared for him at God's right 
hand, where he was to sit enthroned as 
King in Zion. See Mark 16 : 19; Hob. 
1:3; 8:1; 10 : 12; 12 : 2; 1 Pet. 
3 : 22. The prepositional construction 
of the original gives prominence to this 
state of rest, as something upon which 
the mind of Jesus delighted to dwell. 
The way ye know. Our Lord had seve- 
ral times predicted in the plainest lan- 
guage, that he was to be delivered up 
to his enemies and be crucified (see 
Matt. 16 : 21 ; 17 : 22, 23 ; 20 : 18, 19 ; 
Mark 8 : 31 ; 9:31; 10 : 83, 34 ; Luke 
9 : 22-44; 18 : 31-33). The way there- 
fore of his departure from life was not 
unknown to his disciples.. But that their 
Master should suffer a violent death, was 
so repugnant to their preconceived 
ideas of his Messiahship, and so subver- 
sive of all their hopes of his public ac- 
knowledgment by the nation, that they 
rejected it as an unwelcome truth which 
they trusted would never be realized. 

5. The connection of the words of 
Thomas with the preceding context is 



336 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



6 Jesus saith unto him, I am 
e the way, J the truth, and 9 the 



e He. 9 : 8. 
/Ch. 1:17; & 8:32. 



this. In v. 3, our Lord promises to re- 
turn for his disciples, who were for a 
season to be left behind him on earth. 
In v. 4, he reminds them that they 
must well know whither he is about to 
go, and the Avay of his departure from 
this life. This would seem to imply 
that he expected his disciples to follow 
him, when the proper time came, with- 
out any other guide or direction, than 
what lie was here giving. Thomas, 
therefore, either self-prompted or at the 
instance of some of his fellow-disciples, 
interposes a difficulty in the way of fol- 
lowing him, from their ignorance of the 
place whither he was about to go. We 
cannot account for such dulness of ap- 
prehension, even on the part of Thomas, 
who was of so slow and doubtful a tem- 
perament, except from so strong an in- 
clination to the prevalent ideas of a vic- 
torious, reigning Messiah, that he and 
all the rest were blind to any thing 
which seemed to contravene this notion. 
Such an interruption as this of Thomas, 
would have been so characteristic of 
Peter, that some expositors account for 
his silence by supposing him tempora- 
rily absent. But not to say that Peter 
had already penetrated in part at least 
our Lord's going away (13 : 3*7), the 
awful prediction of his fall yet ringing 
in his ears, is sufficient to account for 
his silence during this whole discourse 
of Jesus. 

6. Our Lord replies first to the words 
of Thomas, how can we know the way? 
Then in the words no man cometh unto 
the Father but by me, he plainly inti- 
mates that he was about to return to 
the Father, and that access to heaven 
was to be attained only in and through 
him. I am the way. This is spiritually 
spoken of that union of the believer 
with Christ, which opens a way of ap- 
proach to God, so that as Christ him- 
self returns to the Father, the believer 
may follow in his footsteps and attain 
to the same place of glory and bliss. It 
will be seen by closely inspecting the 



life: A no man cometh unto the 
Father, but by me. 



?Ch.l:4;&ll:25. 
JiCh. 10:9. 



form of the question, that our Lord's 
reply includes the way he himself has 
trod. Hoio can zve know the way (thou 
goest) ? The answer is, / am the way, 
which I and all my followers must pur- 
sue in order to reach the abode of my 
Father. So in 10 : 1, 2, 7, Christ de- 
clares himself to be the Door, and also 
the true Shepherd w T ho enters in by the 
door. There is no difficulty in the right 
understanding of this seeming confusion 
or blending of ideas. Christ opens for 
all his followers a way to heaven, by the 
atoning efficacy of his blood. He is 
therefore figuratively declared to be the 
way, because he is thus the author of 
salvation to them that believe in him. 
But as God-man, haying a perfect hu- 
man as well as divine nature, he has 
himself led the way to God ; not that 
he needed to make any atonement for 
himself or open for himself this way 
(Heb. 1 : 26, 27), but in opening it for 
his people he condescended to walk 
therein, and thus approve himself not 
only the Kedeemer of his people, but 
their Guide and Forerunner in the way 
to heaven. While Jesus then declares 
himself to be the way, he also bids his 
people follow in his footsteps, and thus 
reach the same blissful abode, whither 
he has preceded them, in order by his 
death to remove all obstacles in the 
way of their approach to heaven (see 
Heb. 10 : 19, 20). And the truth, &c. 
There is some difference of opinion 
among expositors, whether these are to 
be regarded as independent clauses, or 
as simple explanations of the first 
clause. The latter view I cannot ac- 
cept. The words are of too weighty 
import, and have too important a posi- 
tion in the original, to be made subor- 
dinate in any respect to the first clause. 
Indeed so far from this, the construc- 
tion of the sentence is evidently climac- 
teric, the truth and the life being an ad- 
vance of the idea contained in the way. 
Alford says that the truth, "is only an- 
other side of the same idea of the way : 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XIV. 



337 



God being true, and only approached by 
and in truth, Christ is the truth (Col. 
2 : 3), in whom only that knowledge of 
Him is gained, which (17 : 3) is eternal 
life." Stier gives this turn of thought 
to the passage : ' the way, because he is 
the truth and the life' Yet this exposi- 
tor cautions against losing sight of the 
decisive I am, which belongs to all 
three, and which indicates that he is 
the fountain of truth and eternal life. 
It appears to me that the three asser- 
tions are independent, progressive, and 
yet intimately connected in thought. 
As the icay, Christ refers to himself in 
the comparatively subordinate office of 
introducing the lost and wandering soul 
to the favor, enjoyment, and presence 
of God. But no one was to mistake 
him as only a mediate source of good, 
or as simply making heaven accessible 
to the penitent and believing soul. He 
was also the truth. ]S"ot simply a light 
to irradiate the way to God, otherwise 
so dark and devious. He was the 
very essence and fountain of all truth. 
Here his divine nature asserts its pre- 
rogative. He cannot prove a false and 
deceitful way leading to death, for He 
is truth itself; and still more than that, 
He is the life. Whoever enters upon 
this ioay to God, at once receives into 
his soul the element of spiritual life, and 
can never die. Hence this way is the 
true way, and leads to life and peace in 
heaven. This exposition closely con- 
nects the three expressions, but not in 
such a way as to make the last two 
merely explanatory of the first. They 
bring out the divine attributes of truth 
and life inherent in Jesus as God's Eter- 
nal Son, and therefore rendering it im- 
possible that the zoay to God, which He 
declares himself to be, should prove 
other than the right way. It is worthy 
of notice, that in this hour of gloom and 
depression, the disciples are cheered 
by these sublime declarations, which 
Jesus could only make of himself as the 
supreme and eternal God. Xo lan- 
guage could be better suited to dispel 
all fear and apprehension, and restore 
to their troubled souls a calm trust in 
the protecting power of God. JVb man 
cometh, &c. This explains what is 
Vol. III.— 15 



meant by the figurative declaration, / 
am the icay. It was by him that a way 
of access to the Father was to be at- 
tained. There was no other mode of 
reconciliation between sinful man and 
his offended God, than that which had 
been effected by the expiatory offering 
of himself in man's stead (see Acts 4 : 
12). It will be seen, therefore, that in 
declaring himself to be the way, our 
Lord also discloses the place to which 
he was going, and hence this may be 
regarded as a full and explicit reply to 
the question of Thomas. Inasmuch as 
his inquiry referred only to the place to 
which Jesus was going, and the way 
thither, no mention is made in this 
clause of the truth and the life, which 
Jesus had just declared himself to be. 
These ideas are expanded in vs. 7, 10, 
11. Cometh. The present of an uni- 
versal and absolute truth. By vie as 
the only way. A question here arises, 
whether it is essential to the salvation 
of every man, that Christ shall be 
known, as he is revealed to us who have 
the gospel of salvation for our guidance. 
We would say unhesitatingly no. A 
heathen man, who shall improve the light 
of nature given to him for his guidance, 
and in his darkness feel after God if 
haply he may find Him, may be saved 
by the benefits of Christ's death, even 
though he has never heard of his name. 
The way to the Father, if trodden by 
him through the abundant mercy of 
God, which even from pagan lands may 
gather trophies of its richness and pow- 
er, is however this very way which Je- 
sus declares himself to be, and which 
he has opened by his blood shed for all 
in every age and nation, who turn from 
the vanities and sins of this world to 
the worship and service of God. It 
is another question, however, whether 
any of the heathen do thus improve 
the light of nature, and seek after the 
worship and service of the true God. 
Without denying that such may be the 
fact, yet the melancholy truth cannot 
be doubted that the great mass of the 
heathen die in their sins, not only ig- 
norant of the true God, but estranged 
from every pure and heavenly senti? 
ment, which they might have obtained 



33! 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 83. 



7 } * If ye had known me, ye 
should have known my Father 

i Ch. 8 : 19. 

from His works and providence, had 
they sought earnestly His guidance and 
favor. 

7. Here is evolved and illustrated 
the great declaration, I am the truth 
and the life. These, as we have re- 
marked, are the attributes of Deity. 
No created being, without the rankest 
blasphemy, can lay claim to the in- 
communicable attributes of eternal 
truth and life. But our Lord not only 
claims these attributes in the plainest 
terms, but he makes the additional as- 
sertion, that his unity with the Father 
is so complete and essential, that who- 
ever knows him knows the Father also. 
The assertion if ye had known me, &c, 
is not hypothetical in regard to the es- 
sential unity existing between the Fa- 
ther and Son, but only in regard to 
their knowledge of the Son referred to 
in the first clause. The simple idea is, 
that if they had known the Son in the 
high sense here intended, it would have 
followed as an inevitable consequence, 
that they would have known the Father 
also, on account of the essential unity 
existing between the two. This ap- 
pears the more clear, when it is remem- 
bered that the connection in which this 
declaration of Jesus stands, refers be- 
yond all doubt the knowledge here 
spoken of to Christ's attributes of divin- 
ity, which he had so often put forth, 
and which were of such a nature that 
none could mistake them, unless their 
eyes were blinded to the truth. A 
knowledge or discernment of these, 
implied a like knowledge of the attri- 
butes of the Father, for they were one 
and the same. From henceforth, &c. 
Some expositors, as Stier and Alford, 
refer this to the time commencing with 
Christ's glorification, and paralleled by 
the now, of 13 : 31. But this hardly meets 
the wants of the verb have seen, which 
refers to time present by means of the 
definite perfect, rather than to the future. 
Chrysostom feeling this difficulty, and 
yet desirous of retaining the general 
signification of the future, thus para- 



also : and from henceforth ye 
know him, and have seen him. 



phrases it : " Soon will ye know him, 
and ye have already seen him, (to wit : 
without knowing him)." Calvin, whom 
Tholuck here follows, gives from hence- 
forth, the sense of even now; "God 
would now be revealed to them, if they 
would but open their eyes." In this 
sense, the words are supposed to con- 
vey a reproof. But if the present is 
the sense, I like better the exposition 
of Webster and Wilkinson ; ' now that 
I have clearly made the revelation, 
from this time ye know, 1 &c. Such also 
is the view of Frof. Kendrick: "from 
this time, after the declaration which I 
have now made to you, ye may consider 
that ye know him," &c. Winer also 
contends against the proleptical use of 
the present here, and translates : from 
this time ye know him and ye have seen 
him. It seems to me that the general 
usage of tenses in a pregnant sense, 
which characterizes this last discourse 
of Jesus, would justify us in so modify- 
ing the idea of time, as to make the 
ignorance denoted in the clause if ye 
had known me, and the knowledge spo- 
ken of as that which they would hence- 
forth have, not absolute, but compara- 
tive. The knowledge which the pres- 
ent discourse Avould enable them to 
gain of his true character, was a great 
advance on that which they had pre- 
viously possessed. Hitherto in their 
strong desire that their hopes of a tem- 
poral Messiah might be realized, they 
had looked rather on those external 
manifestations of his power, which 
they honed would be followed, on his 
part, by a public avowal, and on that of 
the nation, by an acknowledgment of his 
Messiahship. On the other hand, they 
had overlooked the abundant proofs of 
his divinity furnished by his life, doc- 
trine, and miracles, which had it been 
discerned and acknowledged would have 
rectified at once their low and tempo- 
ral views of the kingdom which he 
had come to establish. Now as their 
dreams of temporal power and aggran- 
dizement were dispelled, they would 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIY. 



339 



8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, 
shew us the Father, and it suf- 
ficeth us. 

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have 
I been so long time with you, and 
yet hast thou not known nie, 



look upon him in his true nature and 
dignity, as God's Son, -whose kingdom 
was to be established in the hearts of 
men. That a present knowledge of his 
claim to be one with the Father is re- 
ferred to, seems to be placed beyond 
a doubt, by the reproof given to Philip 
in v. 9. This, Olshausen justly remarks, 
our Lord would not have done, if the 
knowledge of him could only be at- 
tained through the future outpouring 
of the Holy Ghost. 

8. Philip seems to have taken our 
Lord's language in a literal sense, and 
requests that he would make this man- 
ifestation of the Father to them. 
Wnether he expressed the sentiments 
of others at the table, as well as his 
own, we have no means of knowing. 
Such was their position at the table, that 
the group immediately around him 
might by previous concert have made 
him their mouth-piece, without any dis- 
arrangement of their places or any dis- 
turbance whatever. Show 21s the Fa- 
ther. While Philip erred in regarding 
Jesus as a being wholly separate from 
the Father, yet this request shows his 
confidence in the superhuman power of 
his Master, to bring before their eyes a 
vision of the Father. As the ancient 
prophets had been favored with a vision 
of Deity, Philip may have desired to see 
a similar manifestation. It sufficeth us. 
'We shall be satisfied. Our happiness 
will be complete. 1 I cannot think that 
the satisfaction of a vain and morbid 
curiosity is here referred to, but a ful- 
ness of all their wishes and aspirations. 

0. In the most tender manner, our 
Lord disabuses Philip of his mistake in 
supposing that any other manifestation 
of God was referred to, than that which 
had so long been presented to their eye 
by his own personal presence. There 
is a tone of gentle reproof at the blind- 
ness of this disciple, in not perceiving 



Philip ? *he that hath seen me 
hath seen the Father ; and how 
sayest thou then, Shew us the 
Father? 

h Ch. 12 : 45 ; Col. 1 : 15 ; He. 1 : 3. 

the tokens of his oneness with the 
Father, better seen in the original than 
in our common version : ' so long a time 
with you am i, and you have not known 
me, Philip ? Could I have expected 
that you Avould thus long be insensible 
to my true character? Have all my 
miracles, teachings, and declarations, 
failed to convince you that I am no 
mere man, but One who possesses a na- 
ture coequal and cocssential with the 
Father ? ' Olshausen remarks, that 
"the language of Jesus to Philip plainly 
indicates, that the struggle with the 
weakness of the disciples formed a 
part of the Redeemer's sufferings." He 
that hath seen me, &c. No language 
could more strongly and unequivocally 
express the essential unity of the Son 
and the Father, than that which is here 
made use of. How could the sight of 
Jesus be that of the Father, if he were 
any thing less than divine? Between the 
highest conceivable created intelligence 
and the infinite God, there is so vast 
an interval, that the sight of such an in- 
telligence would no more be the sight 
of the Father, than would be that 
of the weakest and lowest individual 
upon earth. The doctrine of Christ's 
supreme divinity, which underlies and 
pervades these great texts, is not to be 
met or evaded, by supposing a moral 
resemblance to be all which is asserted. 
Such a resemblance, to a greater or less 
extent, subsists between all good beings 
and God. How r then could our Lord, if 
he were only a created being, claim this 
in proof, that whoever looked upon 
him looked upon the Father also (i. e. 
in that very act)? "It is true we may 
perceive rays of the higher Light in 
excellent persons, but the divinity itself, 
in living concentration, has appeared 
only in Christ Jesus." Olshausen. The 
declaration is tenable only on the ground, 
that " in him dwelt all the fulness of 



340 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



10 Believest thou not that 1 1 
am in the Father, and the Father 
in me ? the words that I speak 

l Ver. 20 ; ch. 10 : 3S ; & 17 : 21, 23. 

the Godhead bodily " (Col. 2 : 9), and 
that whoever looked upon him looked 
upon one who was God. "Yet that 
by which he was visible, was not God, 
any more than the visible outward 
frame of a man is the man? Webster 
and Wilkinson. "The Son is ever the 
visible face of the Father — rather could 
we see a man independently of or 
apart from his face, than we can see 
God independently of or apart from his 
Son, who is His face." Zeller. It 
should ever be borne in mincl, that this 
seeing of the Father in the face of his 
Son, includes also, as an essential idea, 
the knowledge of Him as He is revealed 
by Jesus Christ. See 1 : 13 ; 6 : 46. 
How sayest thou, &c. This question im- 
plies that the previous manifestations of 
his supreme divinity have been so abun- 
dant and conclusive, that the disciples 
ought not for a moment to mistake his 
meaning, when he speaks of their having 
seen the Father (v. 7). This does not con- 
travene the fact, that after his passion 
and ascension, and under the enlight- 
ening dispensation of the Spirit (16 : 
14), they were furnished with still high- 
er proof of the divinity of Christ. 
Irrespective of this, however, they al- 
ready possessed abundant evidence of 
this truth. The stupendous miracles, 
divine teachings, authoritative exposi- 
tions of God's law, the enactment of 
new rules and ordinances to supersede 
those which had become old and effete 
— all put the question beyond a doubt, 
that Jesus was himself a Being of un- 
derived power and authority, and was 
to be worshipped as the true and blessed 
God. 

10. Believest thou not, &c. 'Art 
thou still in doubt of the intimate rela- 
tion which subsists between me and the 
Father ?' There is here a tone of won- 
der and gentle reproach, that a truth 
supported by such evidence, should 
gain so slow admittance to their under- 
standings and full belief. That 1 am in 



unto you m I speak not of myself : 
but the Father that dwelleth in 
me, he doeth the works. 

m Ch. 5 : 19 ; & 7 : 16 ; & 8 : 2S ; & 12 : 49. 

the Father, &c. The reciprocal indwell- 
ing and unity denoted in this formula, 
has been commented on in ST. on 10 : 
38. Our Lord here refers to it as a 
weighty utterance, which should have 
been pondered upon by his disciples, 
and regarded as a solemn attestation 
of his divine character and mission. 
' Believest thou not that I am what I 
declared myself to be to the Jews? 
Have you so soon forgot my words ? ' 
The words that I speak unto you, I 
speak not of myself. They arc not the 
words of a fanatical and visionary man. 
They are not the expression of mere 
human wisdom, but are given me of the 
Father to be revealed to men. How- 
ever strange and mysterious they may 
be ; whatever apparent discrepancy may 
exist between my present condition, 
and the divine Sonship and unity with 
the Father which I claim for myself; 
yet, as my words and declarations are 
not mine own, but those given me of 
God, they should be received in the 
spirit of the most ready and profound 
belief.' Of myself; literally, from my- 
self. See N. on 12 : 49. That dwelleth 
in me (as I also dwell in him), he doeth 
the works. We should have expected, 
he speaketh the words, but for words is 
here substituted works. This is not 
without meaning. The works of Jesus 
constituted no small part of his testi- 
mony to his divinity, and hence by the 
substitution of this for words, we have 
the condensed form of statement, that 
neither his words and works are of him- 
self apart from the Father, but are 
those which the Father speaks and does 
in and through him. We arc taught 
in this interchange of Christ's words 
and works, that they are correlative, 
harmonious, and unitedly constitute the 
testimony, on which he rests his claims 
to be regarded as divine. The word 
dwelleth, is literally remaincth, abideth, 
and stands opposed to an interpenetra- 
tion or indwelling which is merely tern- 



A. D. 83.] 



CHAPTER XIV. 



141 



11 Believe rnc that I am in 
the Father, and the Father in 



porary. The repetition of the pronoun 
he, in the latter clause, is very em- 
phatic, lie (the Father himself) doeth 
the works. ' He is in me, as I am also 
in Him. All that I do is done by Him ; 
all that He does is done by me. Hence 
in me you see the Father. He it is 
that gives utterance to the great truths 
and doctrines I have revealed, and per- 
forms in like manner the works I have 
done.' What intimate mysterious union 
between the Father and Son, is here re- 
vealed. Neither of them acts apart or 
distinct from the other in any essential 
sense, but the works and words of one 
are those of the other. Does this in- 
troduce confusion into the office work, 
which the Father and Son have respec- 
tively assumed in the work of human 
redemption? Not any. An ineffable 
harmony of action, based on the essen- 
tial unity of these divine persons of the 
Godhead, and developed in all the 
words and works of the Great Reveal- 
er, the brightness of the Father's glory 
and the express image of his person 
(Heb. 1 : 3), is here revealed, which is 
the surest guarantee that all the pur- 
poses of divine love will be accomplish- 
ed, and that those who rely on Jesus 
for salvation, will find a realization of 
all their hopes, not only in his promis- 
ed love and protection from evil, but 
in the concurrent love and protection 
of the Father. 

11. Believe me. The plural form 
shows that our Lord now addresses all 
his disciples who were present. This 
verse may be regarded then as a resump- 
tion of his general discourse, which had 
been temporarily interrupted by Tho- 
mas and Philip. The train of thought 
is carried forward, however, from v. 
10, as is evident upon the very face 
of the passage. He strives to impress 
upon their mind and memory his oft 
repeated declaration, that He and his 
Father are essentially one. The terms 
in which he challenges their belief in 
this great and fundamental truth of the 
Christian system, are not unlike those 



me : "or else believe me for the 
very works' sake. 

11 Ch. 5 : 3G ; & 10 : 83. 

with which he demands of the woman 
of Samaria, her assent to the declara- 
tion which he was about to make to 
her (-A : 21). In both instances, he con- 
descends to preface the great truths 
which he was about to communicate, 
with a most earnest injunction of be- 
lief in his words. In the present in- 
stance, this is rendered more impres- 
sive, by the repetition of the words, 
that 1 am in the Father and the Father 
in me, from the preceding verse. The 
general connection is : ' Dost thou be- 
lieve, Philip, that I and the Father ex- 
ist in this mutual indwelling state ? I 
fear that you are yet incredulous to this 
great truth. But remember that there 
is such unity between the Son and the 
Father, that all my words and works 
are to bo regarded as His also. Be- 
lieve me (I exhort you, my beloved dis- 
ciples, when I assert) that I am in the 
Father, and the Father in me. Give 
full credence to this truth, which once 
received and acknowledged in all its 
glorious reality, will enable you to un- 
derstand the great purposes of redemp- 
tion, and to see how puny are all the 
efforts and machinations of my enemies 
to retard the work I have come to ac- 
complish, or diminish aught from my 
glorification, when I shall return to the 
bosom of the Father.' The original is 
not believe on or in me, as in v. 1, 
where belief in his Messiahship, or in 
his ability to help his followers, is the 
main thing intended; but believe me, 
as one who speaks a solemn and weigh- 
ty truth. Or else. Some think that 
this implies a distrust in their willing- 
ness to take this great truth of his uni- 
ty and equality with the Father, on his 
mere assertion. But this does not ap- 
pear to be so. It is to be taken rather 
in the sense of additional testimony 
drawn from his works, and constituting 
another great line or branch of evi- 
dence by which his claims to supreme 
divinity are supported. These works, 
although so conclusive of his divinity, 
yet would not be so apart from his own 



342 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



12 ° Verily, verily, I say unto 
you, He that believeth on me, the 
works that I do shall he do also ; 

o Mat. 21 : 21 ; Ma. 16:17; Lu. 10 : IT. 

declaration. His words and Avorks arc 
to be regarded in the close and mutual 
relation they sustain to one another, as 
uttering a combined and concurrent 
testimony in favor of the supreme dig- 
nity of Jesus. Yet as his works made 
a more vivid and forcible appeal to the 
eye of sense than his words, they are 
appealed to as evidence which puts the 
truth of his assertions beyond all doubt 
or question. For the very works' sake ; 
literally, because of the works themselves, 
in contrast with the assertion upon 
which he had in the first clause rested 
his claim upon their belief. The prepo- 
sition here translated because or on ac- 
count of, denotes the moving and not 
the efficient cause of belief. 

12. At first sight the connection be- 
tween this and the preceding verse is 
not very apparent. But a closer in- 
spection of the train of thought, will 
show that this verse is designed to con- 
firm the faith of his disciples in the dec- 
laration he had just made. The mirac- 
ulous gifts conferred upon them would 
bear testimony of the power and pres- 
ence of their Lord, even when they 
were no longer permitted to see him 
with the bodily eye. The power to 
perform these miracles, however, sprung 
from and was dependent upon their 
belief on him as the Son of God. He 
that believeth on me as the works, &c. 
The design of these miraculous gifts 
was not to produce faith in him, but to 
increase and confirm that which al- 
ready existed, although comparative- 
ly weak and wavering. He that believ- 
etli on me, not believeth me, as in v. 11, 
for here reference is had to belief, not 
on his simple testimony or assertion, 
but on his Mcssiahship in the high and 
divine sense in which he had just ex- 
plained it. These varied forms of ex- 
pression are all to be carefully noted, 
in order to attain to a clear understand- 
ing of the words of our Lord. The 
works that I do, &c. A similarity in 
kind, but not in decree, is here intend- 



and greater ivories than these 
shall he do ; because I go unto 
my Father. 



ed. We find this promise verified in 
the Acts of the Apostles (3:7,8; 5:5, 
10, 12, 16; 8: 13; 9:40; 13:11; 14: 
10; 19: 11, 12; 20:10; 28: 5). The 
I, both in this and the last clause, is 
emphatic, and makes strong the con- 
trast between our Lord and his disci- 
ples, in the strange revelation here 
made, that weak and frail as they are, 
they shall do greater works than He, 
of whom in the preceding verse su- 
preme divinity has been predicated. 
Greater works, &c. Reference can 
scarcely be had to miracles in the ordi- 
nary acceptation of the term ; for the 
disciples, although abundantly furnish- 
ed with miraculous power, could not be 
said to have transcended the stupen- 
dous miracles wrought by Jesus Christ. 
There can hardly be a doubt, therefore, 
that reference is had here to that great 
and standing miracle of Christianity — 
its rapid propagation in face of such 
powerful and active opposition from its 
enemies. On the day of Pentecost, 
three thousand souls were converted 
to a belief in Him, who a short time 
previous had died the death of a male- 
factor amidst the jeers and taunts of an 
angry populace. From the time of the 
dispensation of the Spirit on that re- 
markable day, the gospel spread with 
amazing rapidity and power, until the 
whole habitable world was reach- 
ed by its blessed influences. This 
founding of the church through the 
agency of Christ's apostles, may be des- 
ignated, Tholuck says, as the greatest 
of miracles. The success attending 
their ministry far transcended that of 
their Master, for the reason that the 
Holy Spirit sent conjointly by the Fa- 
ther and Son (v. 26), rendered their la- 
bors successful. "He sowed, w r e reap; 
and the harvest is greater than the 
seed-time." Stier. Because I go, &c. 
It was not simply the departure of 
Clmst, which enabled the disciples in 
his stead to perform these great works ; 
but because his spiritual presence could 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIV. 



343 



13 p And whatsoever ye shall 
ask in my name, that will I do, 

©Mt.T:7: &21:22; Ma. 11:24; Lu. 11:9; 

cli. 15: 7, 10; & 16 : 23, 24 ; Ja. 1 : 5 ; Uo. 3 : 

22 ; & 5 : 14. 



not be vouchsafed, until he had enter- 
ed upon his glorified state. The dis- 
pensation of the Spirit was not to be- 
gin, until Christ had ascended into 
heaven. Hence his return to the Fa- 
ther is here given, as a ground or rea- 
son why his disciples should perforin 
these greater works, inasmuch as the 
Spirit's influences, in the special sense 
here alluded to, were withheld until af- 
ter that event. 

13. Our Lord here discloses to the 
disciples the great secret of their suc- 
cess, promised in such ample terms in 
the preceding verse. It was by prayer 
to Him who would then be seated on 
his Mediatorial throne, endowed with 
all power both in heaven and on earth, 
and ready and able to give success to 
all their efforts to extend the knowl- 
edge of his name. By this spirit of 
grace and supplication which He would 
pour out, according to promise (Zech. 
12 : 10) upon his servants, they would 
become strong in the Lord and in the 
power of his might (Eph. 6 : 10). The 
only limitation to this promise is con- 
tained in the words in my name, which 
clause Alford interprets, " in union with 
me, as being mine, manifesting forth 
Jesus as the Son of God." But this 
limitation is not to be passed slightly 
over, as of little moment. It shows 
that those prayers only are prevalent 
with Jesus, which have his glory in 
view as their ultimate object. It is 
prayer offered in Christ's name which 
is successful. The furtherance of his 
cause must be that on which the heart 
is supremely fixed. Some expositors 
deny that Christ himself is the Being 
to whom prayer is to be addressed, and 
give this as the sense, whatsoever ye 
shall ask (of the Father) in my name. 
But such is the unity declared to sub- 
sist between the Father and Son, that 
prayer offered to one is offered to the 
other ; and the annexed clause, / will 
do, shows very clearly that by promis- 



that the Father may be glorified 
in the Son. 

14: If ye shall ask any thing in 
my name, I will do it. 

ing to answer prayer, our Lord pro- 
poses himself as one to be addressed in 
prayer. The first prayer after the as- 
cension, was offered to Him (Acts 1 : 24), 
and the disciples in eai4y times were 
known, as those who called upon his 
name. Tliat will I do, shows that he 
shall do, in v. 12, is not spoken of the 
believer's own unaided strength, but of 
what he shall be enabled to do by the 
power of Christ working in him and 
producing these results. TJiat the Fa- 
ther, &c. This is appended as the ob- 
ject or purpose of this readiness of our 
Saviour, to do for his followers what- 
ever they shall ask in his name and for 
the advancement of his cause. Vfhere- 
ever the gospel was preached the name 
of God would be known and glorified. 
The history of the cross was the history 
of human redemption, in which the 
great central feature was, that God so 
loved the world that he gave his only 
Son to die, that the world through him 
might be saved (3 : 16, 17). Hence the 
glory of the Son in this great transac- 
tion, was that of the Father ; and con- 
versely, the glory of the Father was that 
of the Son. But our Lord with his ac- 
customed humility while in the flesh, 
places his own glory in the back 
ground, and gives prominence to that 
of the Father. 

14. The repetition is designed to give 
emphasis to this great declaration. In 
v. 13, the assertion was in a manner 
incidental, but here it becomes a direct 
promise. If ye shall ask any thing, does 
not denote a contingency or doubt, as 
to the fact, that the disciples would 
proffer their request to him for aid in 
the prosecution of their work. It is 
designed as an emphatic averment, that 
as sure as they shoidd ask (Webster and 
Wilkinson) any thing in his name he 
would do it. The pronoun /, which in 
the original was implied in the first 
person of the verb in v. 13, is here em- 
phatically expressed, as though there 



344 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



15 ? If ye love me, keep my 
commandments. 

16 And I will pray the Father, 

q Yer. 21, 23 ; cli. 15 : 10, 14 ; 1 Jo. 5 : 3. 

had been danger of a misapprehension 
of his power or willingness to grant 
them aid in answer to prayer. / will 
do it. ' All power is given unto me both 
in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28: 18), 
and I will preserve and defend you from 
every foe, and render your labors in my 
cause successful.' This shows very 
clearly, that Christ himself is to be ad- 
dressed in prayer alike with the Father. 
Luther well expresses the force of the 
emphatic 1. "Who is the I? I thought 
he would say, ' whatsoever ye shall ask 
the Father in my name, He will do it.' 
But he speaks of himself for a testi- 
mony; and these are strange words for 
a man to speak so loftily. For by these 
words he gives us plainly to understand, 
that he himself is the true, Almighty 
God, equally with the Father." As 
Stier remarks, the he will give in 16 : 23, 
is not a contradiction of the / will do, 
in the present passage, for such is the 
unity of the Father and the Son, that 
now one form of expression is used, 
and then the other, the design being 
evidently to prevent one from taking so 
narrow and imperfect a view, as to sup- 
pose that any one of the Persons of the 
Godhead, in the work of redemption, 
acts apart from and independently of 
the others, so that prayer is to be solely 
and exclusively offered to him. In the 
fervor of Christian devotion and under 
strong emotional influence, the Persons 
of the Trinity, may be individually ad- 
dressed in prayer, but never in such a 
sense as to exclude the whole Godhead 
from being the object of prayer. 

15. The connection of this with the 
preceding context is quite obvious. In 
order to possess themselves of the aid 
promised them in the prosecution of 
their work, they must testify their love 
to him, by a strict observance of his 
commandments. Love and its fruits are 
here connected with the faith, referred 
to in v. 12, as a prerequisite to the per- 
formance of the works there speciiied. 



and r he shall give you another 
Comforter, that he may abide 
with you for ever ; 

r Ch. 15 : 26 ; & 1G : 7 ; Eo. 8 : 15, 26. 



Thus faith worketh by love (Gal. 5 : 6), 
and draws the soul of the believer to 
Christ, to receive new accessions of 
spiritual life and energy. This love is 
not cold and inoperative, but exhibits 
itself in a strict adherence to all the 
Saviour's commands, even to those 
which in their performance require the 
extremest self-denial. 

16. We come now to one of the 
richest and most remarkable promises 
made by our Lord to his disciples, and 
upon the verification of which is made 
to depend the salvation of men through 
the blood of Jesus Christ. When Christ 
returned to the Father, his presence 
through the Spirit of promise was still 
vouchsafed to his disciples. He did 
not leave them alone to prosecute their 
arduous and self-denying work, but sent 
down the Spirit of grace and truth, to 
comfort, guide, and strengthen them, 
and give success to their labors in his 
behalf. They were to wait in Jerusalem, 
until they received this promised Spirit, 
and ever after to put themselves under 
His divine illumination and guidance. 
This was the gift of the Father, in an- 
swer to the prayer of Jesus, the great In- 
tercessor for his people. I will jjray the 
Father. Our Lord's prayers as Inter- 
cessor, are not to be regarded as in 
kind precisely like ours. We as sinners 
confess our offences, and pray for par- 
don through the atoning blood of Jesus 
Christ. But his prayers are to be re- 
garded, as declarative of his sovereign 
will and pleasure in regard to his 
people, who have been given to him 
in the covenant of redemption, and 
over whom he has thrown the robe 
of his own righteousness. Hence by 
virtue of his being the covenant Head 
of his people, and in accordance with 
his essential unity with the Father, he 
is said in 15: 26, himself to send this 
Comforter from the Father. See also 
16:7. In the economy of redemption, 
the Father is regarded as the original 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTEK XIY 



345 



source 'whence flow all the provisions 
of grace ; the substratum, on which 
reposes the -whole grand superstructure 
of redeeming love. He sent the Son 
to make propitiation for the sin of man. 
By his elective grace He draws to the 
Son, those whom in the covenant of 
redemption He has given to be his 
peculiar inheritance (6 : 37, 44). To 
Him the mediatorial kingdom is to be 
given up, at the time of the final con- 
summation of things (1 Cor. 15: 24). 
In accordance with this economical 
arrangement, the Father is said to send 
the Spirit, and the Spirit is said to pro- 
ceed from the Father, not that the 
Spirit as one of the Sacred Three, is 
essentially subordinate or inferior in 
any respect to the Father, but the idea 
is simply one of official subordination. 
Thus in all these passages where the 
Spirit is said to be sent and given, we 
are to adopt the same general princi- 
ples of interpretation, which guide us 
in the exposition of those passages 
which speak of the Son as subordinate 
to the Father. A subordination of of- 
fice and not of essential being, is re- 
ferred to. In the language of Keve- 
lation, the Father sends the Son, and 
the effluence of the Spirit is the gift of 
the Father in conjunction with the ex- 
pressed will of the Son. But this, as 
has been remarked, is founded on no 
essential relation of these persons of 
the Godhead to one another, so that 
subordination of office finds its coun- 
terpart in the very essence of the di- 
vine Tri-unity. As composing the God- 
head, they are coequal in every re- 
spect, so that priority of rank or order 
can in no respect be predicated of them. 
Shall give you. So far as believers are 
concerned, the dispensation of the 
Spirit is a gift, as nruch so as salvation 
through Jesus Christ. But in relation 
to the plan of salvation, the gift of the 
Spirit is a part of the purchase of Christ, 
and as such, is to be included in the 
covenant of redemption entered into by 
the Father and Son. 

Comforter. This word, upon which 

so much has been written, and such 

a variety of opinions expressed, is 

found in the Xew Testament, only in 

Yol. in.— 15* 



' John's Gospel, and in his first Epistle 
I {'1 : 1). In the latter instance, it is ap- 
applied to our Lord Jesus Christ him- 
self in the sense of advocate, intercessor, 
one who pleads the cause of another 
before a judge. In the use of the word 
as a designation of the Holy Spirit, com- 
mentators have generally adopted one 
or the other of the meanings, advocate, 
comforter, consoler, that is, one who 
bestows spiritual aid and comfort. That 
the word is susceptible of any one of 
these meanings, may be seen from the 
signification of the verb from which it 
is derived. This verb is compounded of 
a simple verb signifying, to call, summon, 
invite, and a preposition signifying, by 
or to the side cf, in front of. Thus 
compounded the verb signifies to ccdl, 
to aid, call in, send for, summon, and in 
a derived or secondary sense, to call to 
one, in order to exhort, cheer, and en- 
courage him. These generic significa- 
tions, the verbal adjective paraclete, as 
found here and elsewhere in John's writ- 
ings, retains. It has the passive sig- 
nification, called to one's aid; and also 
the active sense, assisting, as in a court 
of justice, whence comes the substan- 
tive, an advocate. The word has also 
a secondary sense corresponding to 
that of the verb, a helper, adviser, com- 
forter. "We have seen that in 1 John 
2 : 1, the word is applied to Jesus 
Christ, in such a connection that its ob- 
vious sense is advocate. We should 
naturally then affix to the word in the 
present connection, the same meaning 
of advocate, especially as Christ prom- 
ises the Spirit in place of himself, as 
another paraclete, another advocate and 
intercessor. But then we may properly 
ask, is not the office work of the Spirit 
in the regeneration and sanctification 
of the soul, in giving force and power to 
divine truth, in comforting, instructing, 
guiding, and enlightening believers, 
a more comprehensive one, than can 
properly be embraced in the designation 
advocate ? Thus it seems to me, and 
we must therefore take the appellation 
here in a more enlarged sense, than 
simply advocate, or comforter, the 
meanings adopted respectively by the 
two great classes of expositors. The 



346 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



latter of these significations is open to 
still greater objections than advocate, 
inasmuch as it is still more circumscrib- 
ed and specific, and refers to only a 
small part of the functions of the Spirit 
in the renovation and sanctification of 
the believer. 

Alford takes the opposite view, and 
assigns to the word the idea of help and 
strength, as included in that of Comfort- 
er. This he maintains to have been the 
sense in which Wickliffe, from whom we 
have t'.i is translation 'Comforter,' em- 
ployed the word comfort from the Latin 
cojifortari. So Worcester : comfort ; 
Lat. conforto, to strengthen much. This 
is unquestionably its primary etymolo- 
gical signification. But common usage 
has attached to the word comforter, the 
idea simply of one who imparts con- 
solation in the hour of darkness and 
trial. Such a comforter or consoler 
Avill no doubt, if he be true to his office, 
strengthen and confirm the afflicted 
person to the best of his ability ; but 
such a service is not necessarily im- 
plied in the appellation of comforter, 
given him as the bearer of kind words 
and wishes. I am not convinced, there- 
fore, by Alford, that the word comforter, 
is as generic as he maintains it to be ; 
or that this is a felicitious translation 
of the word, to designate the varied 
offices of the Spirit, given by the Lord 
Jesus to be the Paraclete of his people. 
We must seek another term more com- 
prehensive, which shall embrace indeed 
the idea of a consoler or comforter, but 
include also the other acts and opera- 
tions of the promised Spirit. Such a 
general and comprehensive term is the 
word helper, which is closely allied in 
signification to the idea of advocate, 
which, as we have shown, is the proper 
translation of the word in 1 John 2:1. 
A helper is one who defends, intercedes 
for, assists, advises, instructs, comforts, 
and consoles, all which the Holy Spirit, 
in the great office of Paraclete, does 
for the believer. It cannot be denied, 
that this discourse of our Lord, which 
was designed preeminently to comfort 
and encourage his disciples, in the 
dark and trying scenes which were 
soon to pass before them, requires a 



peculiar prominence to be given to the 
Holy Spirit as the Comforter of God's 
people. But these words of Jesus were 
intended also for the great body of be- 
lievers in every age, whose varied and 
peculiar circumstances might require 
the prominent exercise of some other 
of the functions of the Spirit, than that 
strictly implied in the word Comforter. 
In the times of Luther, the Spirit was 
required as the Illuminator of God's peo- 
ple, that they might rightly apprehend 
divine truth, as taught in the Scriptures 
unsealed to the gaze and study of the 
laity and common people. In the times 
of Wesley and Whitefield, the presence 
of the Spirit was especially required to 
restore believers to a living and spiritual 
worship, which had been forsaken for a 
cold and dead formalism. In our own 
day, the operations of the divine Para- 
clete are evinced in the enlarged benevo- 
lence, activity, and enterprise of the 
church, in the diffusion of the gospel 
throughout the world. To these and 
other special manifestations of the 
Spirit, which have marked the history 
of the Christian church, the word Com- 
forter, is too special and restricted in 
its signification to be applied. But not 
so with the designation helper, which is 
so comprehensive, as to include each 
and every function of the Holy Spirit, 
whether as having reference to the 
church as a body, or as composed of 
individual members. 

A special appropriateness is given to 
this meaning from the word another, 
which is here found with it. The Holy 
Spirit was to be given as another Para- 
clete, i. c. in the place of Jesus, who 
had thus far acted as the paraclete of 
his disciples. Was he their paraclete 
only as a comforter ? Was it the prin- 
cipal object which he had in view, while 
passing in their company from place to 
place in Galilee, or in Perea, to comfort 
them in view of their approaching 
trials and dangers ? By no means. 
He instructed, guided, enlightened, re- 
proved, confirmed, comforted his disci- 
ples ; and now he promises another par- 
aclete who shall act in his stead, and 
be as it were his representative, to 
assist and enable them to perform 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIV. 



347 



17 Even s the Spirit of truth ; 

' whom the world cannot receive, 

because it seeth him not, neither 

sCh. 15:26; & 16:13; 1 Jo. 4:6. 
1 1 Co. 2 : 14. 

the great work of evangelizing the 
world, which he was about to commis- 
sion them to execute (Matt. 28 : 19). 
The operations of the Spirit were to be 
even more various and comprehensive, 
than those by which Jesus trained his 
disciples for the work which they were 
to accomplish. To Him was assigned 
the office of regenerating and sanctify- 
ing those who had been given to the 
Son in the covenant of redemption. This 
great work embraced all those influ- 
ences and agencies which are employed 
in bringing men to Christ, and in pre- 
paring them to do his will and service 
both here and hereafter. " It was this 
office (i. e. helper, strengthener, con- 
soler) which Jesus had filled to his dis- 
ciples while with them; — and which 
the Holy Spirit was to fill even more 
abundantly (and in a higher sense be- 
cause their state would be higher) on 
the removal of Jesus from them." Al- 
ford. The wants of the passage are 
therefore more fully met, by the word 
helper, than either that of advocate or 
comforter, which are too special and 
restricted to embrace the full scope of 
its meaning. At the same time, so 
sweet and precious is the word Com- 
forter, so associated with every thing 
gentle and tender, that I would consent 
to no change in our English translation, 
but retain the word, not overlooking 
however the comprehensive significa- 
tion which it evidently has in this great 
connection. 

Tliat he may abide, &c, denotes the 
result, and not the end or purpose of 
this gift of the Spirit. This is another 
proof that the Greek particle translated 
that, may have the eventual sense, 
as well as that of design or purpose. 
See N. on Matt. 1 : 22. Forever is here 
put in contrast with the departure of 
our Lord from his disciples. This other 
Paraclete was not to leave them as the 
first. He was to remain with them 
forever. By this I understand their 



knoweth him : but ye know him 



for he dwelleth with 
shall be in you. 



you, 



and 



u Uo. 2 : 27. 



present and future life — their whole 
eternal being. SoStier: " This forever 
literally and essentially involves eternal 
communion with God in Christ through 
the Holy Ghost." The impossibility of 
losing the Spirit's influences here im- 
plied, is not a natural but a moral one, 
founded upon the everlasting compact 
of redemption, by which a certain and 
definite number have been given to our 
Lord Jesus Christ as his own, and whom 
he has pledged his power and grace to 
bring home to himself in glory. Com- 
pare 6 : 37 ; 10 : 27-29. From these his 
chosen followers the Spirit will never 
take his departure, acting as He does 
in Christ's stead, w r ho has promised to 
come and take them all to himself in 
the house of his Father. 

17. This verse is in explanatory ap- 
position with the preceding, and de- 
fines more distinctly the nature, and 
office work of this Spirit of promise. 
He was to be the Spirit of truth, i. e. 
the author of all truth as revealed in 
the word of God (16:13; 2 Tim. 3: 
16; 2 Pet. 1:21). The Spirit also 
opens the understanding to perceive 
the spiritual import of God's Word, 
and thus quickens and sanctifies the 
soul by the indwelling influence of 
truth. Indeed truth is the great in- 
strumentality of the Spirit, in preparing 
the believer for glory. The article in 
the original Spirit of the truth, is not 
to be overlooked or treated of no ac- 
count. It refers to the Paraclete as the 
Spirit of all truth, both that which 
has already been given, and that into 
which they were to be led by His future 
teaching. Stier after Beck remarks : 
" that it is not a dead word, such as all 
scholars have from their teachers, but 
a living word, the Spirit of the truth — 
for the life of the word is the Spirit." 
The world, i. e. the unconverted world, 
the natural man (1 Cor. 2 : 14), who, as 
Alford remarks, " has no receptivity of 
the things of God." This is what is 



348 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



meant by cannot receive. Until the 
soul is regenerated and quickened to the 
perception of divine things, it has no 
inclination to receive the truth. It is 
blinded by the god of this world, so 
that the glorious gospel of Christ in all 
its exuberant and amazing wealth of 
love, is wholly shut out from its vision. 
Because it seeth him not. The reason 
is here given for the rejection of 
this Spirit of truth by the unbelieving 
world. It sees not the Spirit, and as it 
walks by sight and not by faith, it has 
no appreciation of this heavenly agen- 
cy for the regeneration and sanctiiica- 
tion of the soul. The following verb 
gives additional emphasis to this dead- 
ness of the world to the presence of 
the Spirit of the truth. It not only 
has no perception of this Spirit, but no 
knowledge of him. An intellectual or 
theoretical knowledge is not here re- 
ferred to, for this the unconverted, 
especially in lands where the light of 
the gospel has been diffused, possess. 
But it is a spiritual perception and 
knowledge to which reference is had, 
and this the world does not possess. 
Webster and Wilkinson interpret this 
clause, " as a proof of the fact spoken 
of, and not as a reason for it, otherwise 
the reason and the result in the one 
case are inverted in the other." But 
Olshausen well remarks here : " these 
(implied in the tuorld) cannot receive 
the Spirit, because they are unable to 
see and know him. Hence the latter is 
the condition of the former, although 
it might have been supposed that, in- 
versely, the reception must precede the 
knowledge. This is true of the most 
profound form of knowledge, but never- 
theless a preliminary knowledge is 
necessary to the reception of the Spirit, 
for such knowledge awakens the slum- 
bering desire within." For all this 
knowledge, whether preliminary, as Ol- 
shausen terms it, or that which is sub- 
sequently enjoyed in full degree, the 
soul is indebted to the Spirit of truth, 
whose province it is to open the eyes 
of the understanding (Eph. 1 : 18), 
which before was darkened, they being 
alienated from the life of God through 
the ignorance that is in them, because 



of the blindness of their heart (Eph. 4: 
IS). The conjunction because, does not 
then here introduce proof of the dec- 
laration, that the world cannot receive 
the Spirit of truth, but the grand rea- 
son for such a non-receptivity. But ye 
know him. There is here what gram- 
marians call a prolepsis, that is, the an- 
ticipation of the event spoken of, be- 
fore its actual occurrence. The present 
tense w T ell suits the great idea of the 
passage, for the advent of the promised 
Spirit, and his reception or non-recep- 
tion by those dwelling upon the earth, 
were future events, yet the disciples 
had then that perception and knowledge 
of divine things, which would render 
their souls and even their bodies fit 
temples for the indwelling of the prom- 
ised Spirit (see 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 
Eph. 2 : 22). For introduces the reason 
why the disciples had the knowledge 
of the Spirit here spoken of. He dwell- 
eth with you. As Christ during his 
public ministry had remained with his 
disciples, and by his presence and inter- 
course had enabled them to know him; 
so was this other Paraclete to abide with 
them, and enable them to fully know 
and recognize his presence and sancti- 
fying power. With you in companion- 
ship and love. Shall be in you, is an ad- 
vance on the idea of fellowship and com- 
munion indicated by with you. in the 
preceding clause. The highest and most 
blessed result of this gift of the Spirit, 
was His taking full possession of the 
heart and affections, and swaying the 
whole inner man to the obedience and 
service of Christ. The verb in the 
original is future, "because through 
their knowledge of the Spirit proper 
to their complete state, and his dwell- 
ing, remaining, among them, had in 
some inferior sense begun, — his dwelling 
in them had not." Alford. Stier, losing 
sight of the progression in holiness de- 
noted by this future in connection with 
the proleptic present, prefers the read- 
ing is, instead of shall be. This exposi- 
tor, however, rightly remarks, that 
"this general contrast with the unbe- 
lieving world, not with other believers 
and disciples, makes it plain that this 
promise of the Comforter, and the but 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIV. 



349 



18 * I will not leave you com- 
fortless : * I will come to you. 

19 Yet a little while, and the 

x Mat. 2S : 20. y Ver. 3, 28. 

ye here, by no means applies to the 
Apostles alone." 

IS. / will not (when I go to the 
Father) leave you, comfortless ; literally, 
orphans, which would be the better 
rendering, inasmuch as comfortless de- 
notes the effect of this orphanage, and 
not the state or condition itself, as in the 
original. I will come to you ; literally, 
am coming to you. What coming is 
here referred to ? Say some, the final 
coming at the day of judgment. This 
was the opinion of Augustine. But it 
seems evidently to refer to a coming 
less remote and magisterial than that of 
the last day. Some mistaking the force 
of yet a little while (v. 19), find in it his 
reappearance and intercourse with the 
disciples, between the time of his resur- 
rection and ascension. But this was 
only an appearance to his disciples, and 
not to believers in every age, to which, 
as Stier has shown, this Avhole passage 
refers. That appearance also was of 
too short duration, to fill the full meas- 
ure of their desire for his presence, 
and prevent their being left in orphan- 
age. Stier refers it to a "perspective 
connection of comings" (see N. on v. 
3) ; or, as Alford expresses it, " the 
great Re visitation in all its blessed pro- 
gress." But this is too general to 
furnish the specific ground of encour- 
agement here manifestly intended by 
the promise. There is but one other 
coming which remains for our adoption, 
and that is the coming of Christ by his 
Spirit. That this is the true exposition, 
is evident not only from the preceding 
context, which refers the gift of the 
Spirit as another Comforter, which he 
was to send in his stead, and whose ad- 
vent would not be consistent with the 
personal presence also of himself with 
the disciples ; but also from v. 23, where 
the coming of the Father and Son, 
must in the nature of the case be a 
spiritual one. The disciples were not 
then to be deserted and left in a state 



world seetli me no more ; but z ye 
see me : a because I live, ye shall 
live also. 



sCh. 16:16. 



a 1 Co. 15 : 20. 



of orphanage (see N. on v. 10). Jesus 
would be present by His promised Spirit, 
the Helper, Confirmer, Comforter (see 
N. on v. 10), and thus satisfy all their 
longing desires for his bodily presence. 
Olshausen well remarks: " With the 
Spirit and in him, Christ himself comes, 
for the Spirit takes of that which is 
Christ's and shows it unto them (16 : 
15.)" 

19. Yet a little while. The next day 
he w r as crucified and buried. Seeth me 
no more. There is no evidence that 
any of the Jews apart from his disci- 
ples, saw him during the forty days 
which intervened between his resurrec- 
tion and ascension. But ye see mc. 
Alford finds the immediate reference to 
the forty days (Acts 10 : 41), but only 
as leading on to its wider and deeper 
reference to the spiritual life. Such 
also is Stier's exposition : "Ye shall 
see me first externally, then and there- 
after in the Spirit, ye shall live as I live, 
when ye have me abidingly in the Spir- 
it." But is not the demand of the con- 
text, which insists so strongly on 
Christ's spiritual presence, through the 
Comforter or Helper whom he was to 
give as his representative, most satis- 
factorily met, by referring this sight of 
him solely to the sense which they were 
to have of his spiritual presence ? It 
impairs the beautiful connection and 
harmonious relations of the parts of 
this discourse, thus to combine in one 
act the natural and the spiritual. As 
to what is said, that the antithesis re- 
quires the verb see, to be taken in the 
same literal sense in both clauses, 
this might be so, had we not been 
apprised in v. IT, that a spiritual per- 
ception and knowledge of the Spirit — - 
and by implication of Christ's pres- 
ence — was what constituted the distin- 
guishing characteristics of believers. 
This feature runs through the whole 
contrast here drawn between his disci- 
ples and the world. Although depriv- 



S50 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



20 At that day ye shall know 
that b I am in my Father, and ye 
in me, and I in you. 

21 e He that hath my command- 

o Ver. 10 ; ch. 10 : 38 ; & 17 : 21, 23, 26. 
c Ver. 15, 23; 1 Jo. 2 : 5; & 5: 3. 

ed of His bodily presence, they were to 
be blessed with His spiritual presence ; 
but the world, when once he ascended 
to His Father, would never have a 
sight of him again on earth, either 
physical or spiritual. The present see, 
has obviously the sense of the future 
shall see. This proleptic use is quite 
common. See N. on v. 17. Because I 
live, &c. Here again expositors have 
been divided as to whether natural or 
spiritual life is referred to ; or whether 
there is a combination of both ideas. 
I think there can hardly be a doubt, that 
in the first Hive, is included life in its 
most extensive and generic sense, and 
that the present tense is used because, 
as Alford remarks, the principle of life 
is immanent in him. But in the phrase 
ye shall live also, spiritual life only can 
be immediately intended, although even 
here life in its lower sense must neces- 
sarily be included (see N. on 11 : 25). 
As their spiritual life was to receive a 
new impulse and development, by his 
promised presence through the Spirit, 
the verb very properly is put in the fu- 
ture, ye shall live. The passage then 
teaches, that the guarantee of the spirit- 
ual life of the believer, is the principle 
of life which inheres in the Eedeemer, 
as the primeval source of all life (see 1 : 
4). As his followers are united to him 
by the Spirit, his life becomes their 
life — as he lives, they shall live also. 

20. At that day is a prophetic for- 
mula, used for the indefinite future. 
" No particular day ; but each of these 
periods, as its continually increasing 
light breaks upon you, shall bring in- 
creased knowledge of your unity in me 
with the Father, and my dwelling in you 
by the Spirit." Alford. Ye shall know. 
The perfect knowledge which under 
the dispensation of the Spirit, they 
would have of His unity with the Fa- 
ther, and of the mutual indwelling of 
Him and them, is here impliedly con- 



ments, and keepeth them, he it is 
that loveth me : and he that lov- 
eth me shall be loved of my Fa- 
ther, and I will love him, and will 
manifest myself to him. 

trasted with their present doubts and 
fears. In the words ye in me and I in 
you, nothing more is meant than a uni- 
ty or indwelling of love. The notion 
of Olshausen, that here is a sort of con- 
substantiality, and that the profound 
idea of John is, that the Eedeemer im- 
parts his own essence, and in the holy 
supper, even his glorified humanity to 
his brethren," — although he softens the 
assertion by saying that "this commu- 
nication of his nature is pure love," — 
is erroneous and mischievous in its ten- 
dency. Our catechism very properly 
guards against any tendency to consub- 
stantiation, or the belief of any physi- 
cal incorporation of the body and blood 
of Christ, so natural to the human 
mind, which seeks after the corporeal 
and sensual, to the neglect of that 
which is unseen and spiritual. " The 
worthy receivers are not after a cor- 
poreal and carnal manner, but by faith 
made partakers of his body and blood, 
with all his benefits, to their spiritual 
nourishment and growth in grace." 
Assemb. Short. Cat., Ans. to Q. 96. 

21. The former part of this verse is 
a repetition of v. 15, and serves to 
limit the love-union and mutual in- 
dwelling of Christ and the believer, to 
such as obey from the heart all his pre- 
cepts. The sentiment in he that keep- 
eth, &c, is not unlike that of Matt. 7 : 
24, that hath corresponding to that 
heareth, with the additional notion of 
having in permanent possession, as op- 
posed to the mere hearing of them 
from the mouth of another. So keep- 
eth them, is a little more than doeth them 
in Matthew, referring as Stier says, 
" more to the inner will to keep them 
than to the absolute observance, which 
can only follow on high degrees of 
spiritual advancement." He it is, &c. 
The idea is, that there is no evidence 
of love where the commands of Christ 
are not obeyed from the heart. Hence 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIY. 



351 



22 d Judas saith unto him, not 
Iseariot, Lord, how is it that 
thou wilt manifest thyself unto 
us, and not unto the world ? 

23 Jesus answered and said 



d Lu. 6 : 16. 



Yer. 15. 



the pronoun in the original is emphatic, 
as though it had been said, he it is 
(and no other) that loveth me.- In the 
clause shall be loved of my Father, is 
the promised result of the supreme love 
for Christ which manifests itself in obe- 
dience to His commandments. Here 
again the unity of Christ with the Fa- 
ther, is brought forward under a new 
aspect. They who love Jesus and obey 
his commands, shall be loved of God 
and of his Son {I will love him). As 
there is a oneness of love between the 
Father and Son, so there is a like unity 
in that which they have for those who be- 
lieve in Christ — the love of the one pre- 
supposes that of the other. Will mani- 
fest mxjself to him. This is to be taken 
of a spiritual manifestation (see v. 19). 
The verb will manifest, is one, how- 
ever, of strong import, its literal signi- 
fication being to make apparent, to show 
forth, make clear or plain. In Matt. 
21 : 53, it is employed of the saints who 
came forth from the grave after our 
Lord's resurrection, and appeared unto 
many. See also Heb. 9 : 24. Hence 
some expositors refer this manifes- 
tation to the appearance of Jesus to 
his disciples after his resurrection. But 
this is too restricted an application of 
this glorious promise, than which, as 
Stier remarks, "there is no promise 
greater or higher for man," and which 
belongs to every believer down to the 
end of time. This divine manifestation 
is not a transient, distant, imperfect 
view, which the believer obtains of Je- 
sus at distant intervals, when the thick 
clouds of unbelief part asunder ; but is 
the indwelling of the Son who with the 
Father comes to him, and takes up his 
abode with him (see v. 23). 

22. Judas — not Iseariot. As the trai- 
tor had previously left the table, this 
remark seems to have been made, to 



unto him, e If a man love me, he 
will keep my words : and my Fa- 
ther will love him, f and we will 
come unto him, and make our 
abode with him. 

/Uo. 2:24 ;Ke. 3:20. 



keep that fact before the mind. The 
Judas who speaks here, was Judas 
(in Matt. 10 : 3, Lebbeus) Thaddeus. 
See Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16. See 
also N. on Matt. 10 : 3. How is it, 
&c. This restricted manifestation of 
Jesus to the circle of his disciples, seem- 
ed so incongruous with the public dis- 
play, which they in common with their 
Jewish countrymen supposed would at- 
tend the establishment of the Messianic 
kingdom, that Judas interrupted our 
Lord with the question here recorded. 
How is it ; literally, what has happened ? 
There is in the inquiry a tone of surprise, 
as though something had occurred to 
frustrate that manifestation to the 
world, which it was supposed that the 
Messiah as King and Judge of the na- 
tions would make. Wilt manifest; lit- 
erally, art about to manifest, the idea 
of intention or purpose being implied. 
To us, thy disciples who are now pres- 
ent. And not unto the ivorld. Jesus 
had not said in direct terms that he 
would not manifest himself unto the 
world. This was implied, however, in 
his promise to manifest himself to those 
who testified their love to him by a 
life of holy obedience. As the world is 
a generic term for those in it who are 
Christ's enemies, and neither see nor 
know the Spirit of promise whom he 
was to send (see v. 17), it is of course 
excluded from the enjoyment of the 
manifestation here promised. In this 
aspect, Judas had correctly understood 
his Lord. But his mistake lay in his 
low and temporal views of the Messianic 
kingdom, which led him to suppose, 
that Jesus as universal King must ne- 
cessarily appear openly to the world ; 
and then as a natural deduction from 
this temporal view, he mistook the ap- 
plication of the promise of Christ's 
manifestation to those only who were 



352 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



24 He that loveth me not 
keepeth not my sayings : and 
9 the word which ye hear is not 



present at the table. He should have 
seen that the world, as here used by 
our Lord, comprised those in it who 
were the enemies of truth ; and as such 
could not have been put in contrast 
with the disciples only, but with all the 
good avIio were then or afterwards to 
be on the earth. 

23. Our Lord does not furnish a di- 
rect reply to the question of Judas. 
This would have been a mere gratifica- 
tion of his curiosity, without the in- 
struction that his case demanded. He 
explains the nature of this manifesta- 
tion. It is made to those who love 
and obey him. It is a spiritual and in- 
visible manifestation, for it is made 
conjointly with the Father, the invisi- 
ble God. It has reference not to the 
congregated masses of men, but to each 
individual believer. Thus the ivhat has 
happened of Judas, is shown to be 
founded on a gross misconception, the 
manifestation spoken of being one, 
which the Father in the counsels of his 
eternal wisdom had graciously deter- 
mined to make conjointly with the Son, 
to every believer. If any man love me, 
&c. Our Lord here repeats as of the 
last importance, the necessary and in- 
dissoluble union which exists between 
love and true obedience. Words is 
here substituted for commandments, in 
vs. 15, 21, with an enlarged sense ; as 
the words of Jesus comprehended be- 
sides his commandments, all that he 
says about repentance, love., humility, 
self-denial, and the like. All these say- 
ings of our Lord are to be treasured 
up in the heart, and made the founda- 
tion of all the acts and purposes of life. 
My Father will love him. Christ's love, 
which was fully expressed in connec- 
tion with that of the Father in v. 21, is 
here implied. The fact that the Fa- 
ther loves those who love and obey his 
Son, implies such essential unity, that 
love to the Son is love also to the Fa- 
ther ; and the love of the Son for those 
who love and obey him, is that also en- 



mine, but the Father's which sent 
me. 

gMev. 10; ch. 5:19, 38; &7:16; &8:28;& 
12 : 49. 

tertained for them by the Father. 
There is no other way of explaining 
these great utterances of our Lord, 
than on the ground of the essential 
union and equality of the Father and the 
Son. We will come unto him, &c. Here 
the Father and Son are associated in 
one ineffable WE ; and no exercise of 
human ingenuity can evade or set aside 
the great truth, that the unity and dis- 
tinct personality of both Father and 
Son, as related to the Godhead, are 
taught beyond all question. Will come 
unto him, and make our abode (literally, 
dwelling-place) with him, is progressively 
spoken, the idea being metaphorically 
that of a man removing his abode from 
one place to dwell in another. The 
promise is one of infinite and marvel- 
lous condescension, and should awaken 
the deepest love and gratitude in every 
breast. Compare with this great prom- 
ise, Eom. 8 : 9-17 ; 1 John 4 : 12, 13, 
16; Rev. 3:20. Although the words 
with him, might seem to indicate what 
is commonly expressed by having one's 
dwelling-place near that of a friend ; 
yet the sense expressed in varied lan- 
guage, is the same as that in v. 17, 
where the indwelling of the Spirit is 
referred to. 

24. The same general idea is here, 
according to John's usage, negatively 
expressed. The negative repetition of 
the sentiment not only gives it empha- 
sis, but is thus shaped, in order to pre- 
serve a correspondency with the nega- 
tive portion of Judas' inquiry, and not 
unto the world, as v. 23 constituted the 
reply to his thou icilt manifest thy self to 
us. He that loveth me not, &c. The 
form of expression is inverted from v. 
21. An exact correspondence would 
have required, he that keepeth not my 
sayings loveth me not. It corresponds 
however to the order of the words in v. 
23. These varied forms of expression 
are designed to show, that love implies 
obedience, and obedience, love, and 
where one exists the other is found also. 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIY. 



353 



25 These things have I spoken 
unto you, being yet present with 
you. 

26 But A the Comforter, ivliicli 
is the Holy Ghost, whom the Fa- 

h Yer. 16 ; Lu. 24 : 49 ; ch. 15 : 2G ; & 1G : T. 

He that loveih me not, is equivalent to 
if a man love me not, the same hypo- 
thetical form adopted in the corre- 
sponding portion of v. 23. The form 
presupposes the realization of the con- 
dition, and the consequence follows, that 
one who loves not Jesus will not keep 
his sayings. The necessary implication 
from the preceding verse is that the 
Father will not love him, nor will the 
Father and Son come to him, and take 
up their abode with him. It hardly 
need be said, that not to love Jesus 
Christ, is essentially and necessarily to 
hate Him, there being no neutral ground 
between the extremes of love and hate. 
See Xs. on Matt. 6 : 24;. Luke 16 : 13. 
Sayings, the same in the original trans- 
lated xeords, in v. 23. And the word 
which ye hear, &c. This is added to 
give importance to the words of Jesus, 
which were acknowledged and obeyed 
by his disciples, but rejected by the 
•world. The wor-d was not his own 
apart from the Father, but was the Fa- 
ther's who sent him to bear just such a 
message to men. This makes the re- 
jection of the gospel of Christ, rank 
and open rebellion against God's word 
and authority. I cannot forbear to re- 
fer the reader again to the evidence of 
the unity of the Son and of the Father, 
which is taught openly or by implica- 
tion in all these great declarations of 
Jesus. At the same time the phrase 
which sent me, here, as elsewhere in its 
frequent utterance by our Lord, indi- 
cates not only his divine mission, but 
his official subordination to the Father, 
and is thus an expression of the pro- 
foundest humility, when regarded as 
spoken by one, " who being in the form 
of God thought it not robbery to be 
equal with God" (Phil. 2:6). 

25. These things, i. e. these instruc- 
tions and consolations. Being yet pres- 
ent with you, i. e. while present with 



ther will send in my name, 'he 
shall teach you all things, and 
bring all things to your remem- 
brance, whatsoever I have said 
unto you. 

i Ch. 2 : 22 ; & 12 : 16 : & 16 : 13 ; Uo. 2 : 20, 27. 

you. The idea is implied, that soon he 
will leave them and his instructions will 
cease. Before he takes his final de- 
parture, he announces these truths to 
them, anticipatory in a measure of the 
more full and perfect revelation, which 
he will make to the soul of the believer 
by the Spirit of promise. The verb 
have spoken, is taken by Stier in its 
most enlarged sense, as contemplating 
the conclusion of all his discourses with 
the disciples, this not being however its 
sole meaning, the sense being rather, 
" with these last-spoken words, my 
speaking, teaching, discoursing, have 
an end." It would almost seem that 
our Lord was intending to finish his dis- 
course at this point, but that from some 
unexplained cause, he continued it in 
the words which follow. " As if he 
had already spoken all, he continues to 
speak. His words begin anew and are 
prolonged on and on, as takes place at 
all important farewells ; and the ' I go 
now,' may have been more than once 
uttered." Stier. Sec N. on v. 31. 

26. But the Comforter. See N. on v. 
16. The Holy Ghost, called in v. 16, 
the Spirit of the truth. The adjective 
Holy, is rendered emphatic by its posi- 
tion in the original after the noun to 
which it belongs, the Spirit (viz.) the 
Holy. This is the great and glorious 
appellation of the third Person in the 
adorable Trinity. See N. on Matt. 28 : 
19. The word rendered Ghost, is the 
same as in other places is translated 
Spirit, and it would have been well had 
this been the word by which it was in- 
variably translated. Whom the Father 
will send in my name. In v. 16, the 
Spirit is said to be given by the Father, 
in answer to the prayer or declared will 
of Jesus. This connection of the gift 
of the Spirit with the will of Christ, is 
denoted here by the words in my name, 
which, as Alford remarks, is not here 



354 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



to be taken in the sense of "in my 
stead, but in regard of me, in answer to 
my prayer and prayers in my name — 
to those who hear my name — and as a 
means of manifesting me." This how- 
ever does not exhaust the meaning of 
the phrase. As Christ declares that he 
came in the Father's name (see 5 : 43), 
meaning thereby, that the Father had 
sent him, and that he proceeded from 
the Father ; so here in my name, refers 
to the fact, that Christ concurrently 
with the Father sends the Spirit (see N. 
on 15 : 26) on His mission, and in such 
a manner that the Son is in him and 
comes with him. There is an unfath- 
omable mystery in this, as well as in all 
other things pertaining to the blessed 
Trinity. But of nothing are we taught 
more clearly and explicitly, than that 
while the persons of the Godhead are 
distinct, yet there is between them such 
essential unity that where one is there 
are all, and that the works and opera- 
tions of any one of them, are essentially 
the works and operations of the whole 
Godhead. That the Holy Spirit is a 
distinct personality, is shown, not only 
from the name here given Him, but 
from the pronoun he, by which in the 
following clause He is referred to. But 
that Jesus Christ operates in and through 
Him, is also a truth taught with equal 
explicitness in the Xew Testament. 
See JSTs. on vs. 18, 21, 23. Compare 
also Kom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6. He shall 
teach you all things. i He shall instruct 
you in all that pertains to the proper 
discharge of your apostolical duties, and 
enlighten your minds in regard to many 
things which now to the eye of sense 
look dark and mysterious.' All things 
in the first clause, is not to be con- 
structed with the words whatsoever I 
have said unto you,iov they belong only 
to the clause bring all things, &c. The 
idea is that not only were all things, 
which Jesus had himself taught and 
said while personally with them, to be 
recalled to their mind by the Holy 
Ghost, but all other truths necessary 
to their ministerial work, were to be 
revealed to them by this same Helper 
or Comforter. All things is not abso- 
lutely but relatively spoken. It has a 



very comprehensive sweep, but does 
not go beyond the bounds of what may 
be proper and essential for the disciples 
to know, in the discharge of their duty 
as religious teachers of men. The mis- 
interpretation of this passage by the 
Church of Rome and by fanatical men, 
as a promise of a continued revelation 
under the dispensation of the Spirit 
(Tholuck), has led some interpreters, as 
Grotius, to connect all things, in both 
instances, with the clause whatsoever I 
have said unto you,. But with the re- 
stricted sense, demanded by the scope 
and design of the passage to be given 
to all things in the former clause, no 
shadow of proof can be found in it of a 
continued teaching of new things, and 
the making of new and distinct revela- 
tions, such as the Eomanists claim, with- 
out a wresting of the passage from its 
obvious and legitimate import. Bring 
all things to remembrance. Who can 
doubt that John himself in the compo- 
sition of this Gospel, experienced the 
truth of the promise here made. It was 
forty years or more, after the Ascension, 
when he wrote it. After so long a 
period, he could not have related 
with such minute accuracy the dis- 
courses of Jesus, unless the Holy Ghost 
had brought these things to his remem- 
brance. Stier after Gerlach takes this 
expression in the deep sense of not 
" merely calling back the words to their 
remembrance, but the opening to them 
the words which they had heard, but 
which had remained obscure ; in short, 
the disclosing with undeceiving clear- 
ness the meaning of the sayings of Je- 
sus." That this is implied in the words 
there can be no doubt ; yet the funda- 
mental idea is what lies upon the face 
of the passage, a bringing bach to one's 
mind, a reminding of words formerly 
spoken, or events of the past. A ques- 
tion here arises, whether this promise 
was addressed to the great body of the 
believers in every age, or to the apos- 
tles alone. There can be no doubt 
from the nature of the case, and the 
limitation denoted in the words what- 
soever I have said unto you, that special 
reference is had to those who were 
then reclining with him at the table. 



A.D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIV 



355 



27 * Peace I leave with you, 
ray peace I give unto you : not 
as the world giveth, give I unto 
you. ' Let not your heart be 
troubled, neither let it be afraid. 

jfc Phi. 4 : T ; Col. 3 : 15. 
I Ver. 1. 
»»Ver. 3, IS. 

But as a great Illuminator and Enlight- 
ener, to give life and energy to God's 
word, and to open the understanding 
for its reception, all which is embraced 
in the scope of this promise, the Spirit 
is the gift of the whole church in every 
age. 

27. Stier supposes a short pause be- 
tween this and the preceding verse, to 
enable the disciples to reflect upon the 
consoling promises which had just been 
made to them, after which he proceeds 
with the farewell, which in v. 25, he had 
already begun. Peace Heave with you, 
&c. This was the form of parting sal- 
utation. But the time and occasion 
impart to it something more than a 
mere form of farewell. It was intended 
as a gracious indication of his love and 
tender regard for their welfare, at this 
solemn moment when he is about to 
leave them and return to his Father. 
2I'j peace ; literally, peace that (which 
is) mine. Some expositors find a dis- 
tinction between these words and peace 
in the first clause. There it has the 
sense usually given to such a parting 
salutation among men. In the second 
clause, it refers to the peculiar inward 
peace which Jesus gives to those who 
are his true disciples. This, as Alford 
remarks, he gave over and above that 
other. Not as the world giveth, i. e. 
not in that formal and heartless man- 
ner, in which such salutations are ex- 
changed among men. In the mouth of 
Jesus, it was not the utterance of an un- 
meaning compliment, but the bestow- 
ment of a real blessing. There is no 
denial here that there is peace of a cer- 
tain kind enjoyed by the world, or that 
men may be sincere in their wishes for 
the peace and happiness of others, even 
when they are strangers to the love of 
Christ. But the simple idea is, that 



28 Ye have beard how m I said 
unto you, I go away, and come 
again unto you. If ye loved me, 
ye would rejoice, because I said, 
B I go unto the Father : for ° my 
Father is greater than I. 

n Ver. 12 ; ch. 16 : 16 ; & 20 : 17. 
o See ch. 5 : IS ; & 10 : 30 ; Phi. 2 : 6. 

true and lasting peace is in the gift 
only of Jesus ; and that when he be- 
stows it in the form of a gracious bene- 
diction, it becomes the real possession 
of the soul of the believer. Let not 
your heart be troubled, &c. An em- 
phatic repetition of the first verse, hav- 
ing increased force and pertinency, from 
the rich promises and consolations with 
which the discourse of Jesus abounds. 
Neither let it be afraid. This is added 
to the exhortation as it stands in v. 
1. The verb here employed is derived 
from a word signifying cowardly, faint- 
hearted, and hence miserable, wretched, 
through cowardice and continual fear. 
The word therefore is one of strong im- 
port. They were not to prosecute the 
work of their mission in a dejected and 
timid frame of mind, but with all joy 
and boldness, as those upon whom rest- 
ed the peace and favor of their Lord 
and Master. How well they obeyed 
this parting direction of their Lord, is 
seen in their whole history, as set forth 
in the Acts of the Apostles. 

28. Ye have heard, &c. Reference is 
had to his announcement of this fact 
in 13 : 33. In the words and come again 
unto you, there is a condensed epitome 
of all which he had said in the preced- 
ing discourse. See vs. 3, 16-19, 21, 23. 
If ye loved me. Our Lord does not 
here deny that they loved in any degree. 
The expression has a comparative force : 
' if ye loved me with that full measure 
of love, to which by the gift of the Spirit, 
you will soon attain, ye woidd rejoice ; 
literally, ye woidd have rejoiced.'' See 
Matt. 11 : 21. It appears quite evident 
from this, that his words of tender con- 
solation had failed to dispel the feeling 
of sadness, which, in view of his decla- 
ration that he was soon to depart from 
them, was weighing down their spirit. 



356 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



He now reminds them, that this sorrow 
and dejection of spirit are the result of 
their want of supreme love to him. If 
they Avere possessed of this love, they 
would even rejoice in the announce- 
ment, that he was about to go to the 
Father. His departure would be the 
occasion not of grief but of positive joy. 
For my Father, &c. This is logically 
connected with the preceding ye would 
rejoice, as a reason, and inasmuch as it 
can have no direct relation to their 
own immediate welfare, the reason 
must be founded on an elevation to a 
higher state of glory, to which the Re- 
deemer was about to be advanced. This 
will serve as the key to the meaning of 
this causal sentence, for my Father is 
greater than I. This superiority of the 
Father is susceptible of two meanings : 
1. My Father is greater than I in an 
essential or metaphysical sense. But 
this contradicts the abundant testimony 
of the whole gospel of John, that the 
Son is essentially the coequal of the 
Father, and that no inferiority of es- 
sence can be predicated of him. And 
how, we may ask, could this be a sub- 
ject of joy to his disciples? Was the 
mere fact that the Father was great- 
er than the Son, a reason why they 
should rejoice that Jesus was about to 
leave them ? In his present condition, 
the Father was greater than he, and 
wherein would this relation be es- 
sentially changed in his returning to 
the Father, that it should be urged upon 
them as a ground of joy ? If his Father 
was essentially greater than he, it was 
an infinite excess of greatness ; and the 
Lord Jesus Christ would approximate 
no nearer to the awful and infinite ma- 
jesty of the Father, by ascending into 
heaven, than by remaining on earth, 
" a man of sorrows and acquainted with 
grief." Between the infinite and finite, 
there is an infinitude of disseverance 
which defies all approximation of the 
latter to the former. The highest step 
which a created being could reach in 
imagination, would leave infinite heights 
yet to be scaled, before the Eternal Mind 
in all its illimitable perfections was ap- 
proached. We ask then again, if superi- 
oritv of essence is here denoted, in what 



respect that superiority was a reason why 
the disciples should rejoice that Jesus 
was about to go to the Father, when 
the superiority spoken of already exist- 
ed, and would exist in full degree 
wherever Jesus might go ? The pas- 
sage thus interpreted seems to have no 
appreciable sense. 

The only other meaning which re- 
mains to be attached to these words, is 
that of official superiority, and converse- 
ly, that for the time being there was in 
him an official inferiority. This infe- 
riority which belonged to him as God- 
man, Messiah, was in the future ages 
to be laid aside, but not by one sudden 
act disconnected with the great moral 
results to be secured by the redemptive 
economy. He was to perform the func- 
tions of Mediator', Intercessor, King, 
and final Judge, before he could sur- 
render up his trust to God the Father, 
who had sent him on this mission of 
atoning love. His return to the Father is 
here spoken of as a reason for joy, be- 
cause it was the first step in his elevation 
from the depths of humiliation, into 
which as Redeemer of mankind he had 
descended, to his original glory and 
equality with the Father, which he yet 
essentially possessed, but of which, in the 
wonderful stoop of his grace, he had vir- 
tually disrobed himself. The second and 
final step would be taken, on that awfully 
sublime occasion, when he should give 
up the kingdom unto God even the Fa- 
ther that God might be " all in all" (1 
Cor. 15: 24-28). With this view, which 
we believe to be the scriptural one in 
regard to our Lord's true and essential 
being, we are able to elicit from the 
clause the highest reason, why the dis- 
ciples should rejoice, when he announc- 
ed to them that he was about to go to 
the Father. He would then enter upon 
that glorified state, which was to fol- 
low his life of suffering and humiliation 
on earth, and this would be antecedent 
and preparatory to the final accomplish- 
ment of the work of redemption, and 
his laying down the Mediatorial office, 
as declared in 1 Cor. 15 : 24-28. 

Alford makes this comment on the 
passage: " greater, and therefore the 
going of Jesus to the Father is an 



A. P. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIV. 



S57 



29 And * now I have told you | 30 Hereafter I will not talk 
before it come to pass, that, when much with you : * for the prince 
it is come to pass ye might be- of this world conieth, and hath 
Here. nothing in me. 



p Cfc. 13 : IP : & 16 : 



ffCh.l2:Sl;&16:ll. 



advancement. This vrord greater, as 
Luther well remarks. " is not here used 
as referring to the nature or essence of 
the Son as related to the Father, but 
as indicating that particular subordina- 
tion to the Father in which the Lord 
Jesus then was, and the cessation of 
that state of humiliation, and entering 
into his glory, which would take place 
on his being received up to the Father." 
So also Calvin : " Christ does not here 
compare the divinity of the Father 
with his own, nor his human nature 
with the divine essence of the Father, 
but rather his present condition with 
the celestial glory into which he was 
soon to be received." Tholuck thus ex- 
presses the same idea : "this inferiori- 
ty must consist in something which the 
return of Christ to the Father would 
fully remove, consequently, not in the 
humanity itself, but only the humanity 
in its state of lowliness." With this 
view, Stier, and Webster and Wilkin- 
son, substantially accord. Olshausen 
makes the superiority of the Father 
the necessary result of the eternal 
generation of the Son. " The Son is 
born of the essence of the Father, but 
not inversely the Father from the Son : 
hence the Father is the cause of the 
Son, but the Son is not the cause of the 
Father. The Son proceeding thus from 
the Father, there was necessarily in 
him a desire to return to the Father, 
as every being is attracted to its source ; 
accordingly the return to the Father 
was the satisfaction of the desire, felt 
by the Son who longed after his source, 
and this is the relation of the Son to the 
Father indieaced bv the words greater 



of the first and second Persons in the 
Godhead is given up, whatever may be 
said to the contrary. 

29. And now I have told you, kc. Our 
Lord here refers to what he had told 
them in regard to the Comforter, who 
should come after his departure, and in 
whom should be enjoyed by them his 
own spiritual presence. Before it come 
to pass, i. e. before the manifestation of 
the promised Spirit. The verb come to 
pass (i. e. happen, take place), has 
that tense in the original, which denotes 
a momentary act, and not one contin- 
ued and incomplete. The word, how- 
ever, which is here employed, shows 
that it is not an event which has ac- 

i tually taken place, but one yet in the 

I future. Thus the certainty of the thing 

I spoken of, is the same as though it 

I were already a matter of history. 

I These shades of the Greek, it is im- 

: possible to transfer into English, 

| without circumlocution. That denotes 

the object or purpose of our Lord's rev- 

' elation at this time of the descent of 

the Spirit. When it has come to pass 

! (literally whenever it may happen), i. e. 

| when the Holy Spirit has been sent ae- 

' cording to promise. Ye might (better 

i may) believe. t; The effect of these 

disclosures would be that their faith 

would the more certainly connect him 

personally with the gift of God, the 

Holy Ghost." Webster and Wilkinson. 

30. Hereafter, i. e. from this time on- 
ward, until my apprehension and death. 
The declaration I will not talk much with 
you, in the nature of the case, is to 
be limited to the time embraced in the 
conflict referred to in the words, the 



than I. This exposition of Olshausen prince of this world corneth. As the 
carries with it its own refutation. The 
greater than 7", if founded on an essen- 
tial relation of the Son to the Father, 
as born of or proceeding from him, must 
have eternally existed, and will eter- 



tiung asserted depends not on his own 
will or purpose, but upon the event 
spoken of in the following clause, the 
simple future I shall not talk (i. e. 
have opportunity to talk), would have 



nally exist, and the absolute equality been a preferable translation. The 



358 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



31 But that the world may 
know that I love the Father; 
and r as the Father gave me corn- 
word much refers to a long and extend- 
ed discourse, and by implication, as 
Stier remarks, shows that "he had some 
words more to say, and was not about 
to break off at v. 31, as some have 
supposed." For the prince of this world 
cometh (to make his final and chief as- 
sault upon me), and hath nothing in me, 
i. e. hath no power over me ; or as Alford 
conjectures, finds in me no sinful pro- 
pensity, " no point of appliance whereon 
to fasten his attack." So Hutcheson : 
" Christ being free from sin, Satan had 
nothing of his own in him, either to ac- 
cuse him, or of corruptions, upon which 
to fasten his temptations and make 
them prevail." The prince of this world 
is evidently Satan, the prince of devils 
(see N. on Matt. 12 : 24); the prince of 
the power of the air (Eph. 2 : 2), who 
after the temptation in the desert had 
departed from him for a season (Luke 4: 
13), and now was about to return, in 
order to make one effort more to 
thwart the purpose of his mission, or 
at least, to gratify his malignancy by 
effecting his death. " The approach 
of Satan at this period, and his agency 
in our Lord's great trial, are marked in 
various wavs (see 12 : 31 ; 13 : 27 ; 
Luke 22 : 31, 53)." Webster and Wil- 
kinson. The coming of the prince of 
this world, includes not only the per- 
sonal presence of the arch adversary, in 
this last and great conflict with the Ke- 
deemer, but also all his tools and instru- 
ments, such as Judas, the chief priests, 
Pilate, Herod, the soldiers, mocking 
rabble, &c. 

31. But that the world, &c. There 
is an ellipsis which must be here sup- 
plied, in order to maintain the connec- 
tion with the preceding context. Al- 
ford thus fills out the sense : But (his 
power over me for death will be permit- 
ted by me) that the world, &c. There 
is another mode of construction, which 
is to make the clause beginning with, 
that the world may know, to depend 
upon so I do, i. e. 'my conduct in this 



mandment, even so I do. Arise, 
let us go hence. 

r Ch. 10 : 18 ; PH. 2:8; He. 5 : 8. 

crisis and my voluntary submission to 
the indignities of my enemies, result 
from my desire to evince thereby my 
love to the Father who sent me ; and 
therefore as the Father hath given com- 
mandment, and ordained that I should 
pass through suffering and death to a 
state of glorification at his right hand, 
thus I give myself up to my enemies 
and do his will.' There is still another 
method of construction, which is 
founded on an. interpretation of the 
words, arise, let us go hence, as an in- 
citement to go forth and meet the ad- 
versary, and all the agencies of evil 
which he was marshalling to action 
against the Redeemer. These words, 
constructed with but, instead of con- 
stituting, as they do in our common 
version, an independent sentence, would 
give this as the sense : But arise let us 
go hence (i. e. let us go forth to meet 
this array of sin and death, led on by 
the prince of this world), that the world 
may Tcnovj, &c. In this case, even so I 
do would refer to this holy zeal and 
boldness contained in the words, let us 
go hence. Of these three modes of 
construction, I prefer decidedly that 
which I have first given. Arise, let 
us go hence. This is not, as some 
think, an anticipatory direction to be 
obeyed at the close of his discourse, 
but one to be carried into immediate 
effect. It was a command to rise from 
the table, and make preparations to de- 
part from the city. The only question 
is, whether as a matter of fact they left 
the guest-chamber immediately, or 
lingered yet around the table, until after 
the remaining discourse and prayer of 
Jesus contained in the 17th chapter. 
Webster and Wilkinson take the ground 
that they went forth immediately, the 
subsequent portion of the discourse and 
the prayer being pronounced on their 
way to the garden. It will always re- 
main .an open question, whether they 
went immediately out ; or lingered 
around the table, unwilling that a con- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIV. 



359 



versation so heavenly and comforting 
should be broken off. I incline decid- 
edly, however, to the latter view. All 
that is recorded in Chaps. XV.-XVII. 
was probably spoken in the chamber, 
where they had reclined at the feast, our 
Lord and" his disciples now assuming, 
however, a standing posture. If the re- 
maining portion of the discourse and 
the prayer were spoken on their way 
to Gethsemane, the hymn alluded to by 
Matthew and Mark, must have been 
sung previous to their departure from 
the guest-chamber; for we cannot sup- 
pose that they would have run the haz- 
ard of arousing their enemies, by a hymn, 
sung by so many voices, either in the 
Streets of Jerusalem on their way out, 
or in the valley which separated it from 
the Mount of Olives. But a compari- 
son of Matt. 26:3; Mark 14:26; Luke 
22 : 39 ; John 18 : 1, will show beyond all 
question, that the last exercise which 
they performed previous to their going 
forth into the garden, was the singing of 
the hymn. If this be so, and the hymn 
was sung in the upper room where they 
celebrated the passover, the Avhole dis- 
course and the prayer must also have 
been pronounced there. Dr. Sehauffler 
places the thanksgiving hymn between 
the words "arise let us go hence," and 
the residue of the discourse, which he 
rightly thinks was pronounced while 
the disciples were standing about our 
Lord in the upper room. This was the 
natural place for the hymn ; but may 
we not suppose that it was deferred a 
few moments by the discourse of our 
Saviour, which was almost immediately 
resumed ? 

It seems also very unlikely in itself 
considered, that words of such calm and 
gentle import and so evidently contin- 
uous of the preceding discourse, and es- 
pecially the prayer in Chap. XVII., 
would have been pronounced in a dark 
night to a company of eleven men while 
making a hasty egress from the city, 
and by no means in so compact a body 
as to permit their all hearing the speak- 
er, unless he addressed them in a loud 
tone. This, as has been remarked of 
their singing the hymn on their way out 
of the city, would have exposed them 



to their vigilant enemies. So Stier well 
observes : " we cannot imagine how our 
Lord could have uttered these most 
confidential final sayings in the open 
air, amid the crowds which we must 
assume at the feast time — the last pray- 
er especially requiring a secluded and 
undisturbed place." I think therefore 
that when our Lord gave this direction, 
the company rose up from their reclin- 
ing posture, and as some moments must 
have been consumed in arranging the 
things of the table, so as to be left in 
orderly appearance, they continued to 
linger, and thus seeing how anxious 
they were to hear something more 
from his lips, he continued his discourse, 
as related in 16 : 1. After the discourse 
and prayer were ended, they sang the 
hymn, and then went forth with silent 
and uninterrupted steps to the garden, 
where our Lord entered upon his agony 
as related by the Synoptic Evangelists, 
and passed over by John, who had so 
fully recorded the discourse and prayer 
at the table. 

CHAPTER XV. 
1-27. Christ the tutte Vine. His 
disciples hated by the World. Jeru- 
salem. Evening introducing the sixth 
day of the "Week. This discourse, as 
has been remarked in N. on 14:31, 
must be regarded as the continuation of 
the preceding one, pronounced not on 
their way out of the city, but in the 
same upper chamber, where they had 
celebrated the passover, and where had 
been instituted the sacrament of the 
Lord's supper. That part of the dis- 
course contained in this chapter is very 
closely united, and yet we may discern 
some natural points of division, which 
may help us to the right understanding 
of the chapter. Vs. 1-6 contain the 
similitude of the vine and its branches ; 
vs. 7-10, the application of the figure 
to their union with him, the outward 
manifestation and proof of which was 
their observance of his commandments 
(see Ns. on 14:15, 21, 23, 24); vs. 11- 
17, the consequent joy and love for 
him and one another, and the friendship 
which should cement them and him 
in one eternal bond of union; vs. 18- 



360 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



I 



CHAPTEK XV. 

AM the true vine, and my 
Father is the husbandman. 
2 a Every branch in me that 

a Mt. 15 : 13. 



25, the hatred of the world as the coun- 
terpart of this love, and the sources 
of comfort to be derived from the 
fact, that he their Master had expe- 
rienced also this enmity of the world ; 
vs. 26, 27, the renewal of the promise 
of the Comforter, as a co-witness with 
them of the things pertaining to him 
and his gospel. 

1. / am the true vine. This simili- 
tude reminds us of that contained in 
10:1-18, yet the relation denoted is 
much more intimate and vital, than 
the relation of a shepherd to his flock, 
which denotes rather fidelity and love. 
The loving union of believers to Christ, 
is here illustrated and enforced by the 
organic and dependent connection of 
the branches with the vine to which 
they belong. The true vine is some- 
thing more than that to which prophecy 
refers, or that which is simply abiding 
and substantial, as opposed to the natu- 
ral vine which is subject to decay and 
death. It is Christ, the true arche- 
type of that union, which is so strik- 
ingly set forth in the natural organ- 
ism of the vine and its branches. 
" The material creations of «God are 
only inferior examples of that fine 
spiritual life and organism, in which 
the creature is raised up to partake of 
the divine nature." Alford. The rea- 
sons for the imagery here made use of, 
such as that there was a vine trained 
about the window of the chamber, or 
the carved vines on the doors of the 
temple, or the vineyards on their way 
to the garden, are all too fanciful to be 
adopted as true and legitimate. Our 
Lord and his disciples were too conver- 
sant with the vine, to require the simili- 
tude here made use of, to have been 
suggested by the actual sight of one at 
the time it was spoken. There is no 
doubt, that our Lord very frequently 
drew his imagery from sensible objects 
around him. But this must not be so 



beareth not fruit he taketh away : 
and every branch that beareth 
fruit, he purgeth it, that it may 
bring forth more fruit. 



far pushed, as to render it necessary 
that these natural objects should be 
present always to the eye, when he 
drew therefrom the materials of his 
metaphors and similitudes. My Father 
is the husbandman. This accords with 
the truth which he had so often re- 
peated, that he had been sent of the 
Father, and that he had come into the 
world to do His will. It is consonant 
also with that great parable, in which 
the householder sent his son to receive 
the stipulated fruits of his vineyard 
(Matt. 21 : 33-41 ; Mark 12:1-9; Luke 
20:9-16). God sent his Son into the 
world, and thus as it were planted the 
Vine, of which those who believe in 
Him are the branches. So Tholuck : 
"the Father who sent the Son into the 
world, is the possessor and fosterer of 
the vine together with its branches." 

2. Every branch in ?ne, &c. Besides 
the fruitful branches which are to re- 
main in connection with the vine, there 
are also unfruitful ones which are 
to be lopped off, in order that those 
which are fruitful and healthy, may 
bring forth more fruit. This evidently 
designates the visible church of Christ, 
with its true and false professors, and 
also the exscinding process by which all 
who have no vital connection by faith 
with Jesus Christ, are to be removed 
as worthless branches from the vine. 
These false and barren professors have 
an external connection with Christ 
(" every branch in me that beareth not 
fruit"), but this is their only connec- 
tion. They do not draw from the vine 
that living nutriment and support which 
is essential to fruit-bearing branches. 
He the husbandman, removes them 
therefore from the vine, as being 
worthless in themselves, and taking the 
moisture and support which properly 
belong to those branches which are 
fruitful. But the vine-dresser does not 
stop here in the pruning process. Not 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XV. 



361 



3 h Now ye are clean through 
the word which I have spoken 
unto you. 

&Ch. 13: 10; & IT: 17; Ep. 5:26; 1 Pe. 1 : 22. 

only are the barren branches all care- 
fully lopped off from the vine, but the 
fruitful branches are also subjected to 
the pruner's knife. Every branch that 
beareth fruit, he purgeth it, i. e. he 
clears it of all its worthless parts, and 
prevents its excessive growth, by short- 
ening the branch, and removing its ex- 
uberant leaves and twigs. The expres- 
sion every branch, both here and in the 
previous clause, is placed absolutely in 
the sentence, and thus is rendered em- 
phatic. He takcth away is literally, he 
taketh it away, and thus it conforms to 
the construction, he purgeth it. The 
clause, that it may bring forth more fruit, 
stands as the ground or reason for the 
pruning process just before mentioned. 
The efforts of the vine-dresser are all di- 
rected to this one object, that the most 
abundant fruit may be obtained from 
the branches. It should be noted, that 
the vine is here represented as in a per- 
fect and healthful condition. There is 
no necessity of loosening the soil 
around it and applying manure, as in 
the case of the barren fig tree (Luke 
13:6-9). No threat of excision is 
pronounced against it, in case its 
branches do not all bear fruit. It is 
planted in such favorable soil, and is so 
vigorous and healthy, that it suffices to 
furnish its life-giving sap to all its 
branches, however numerous they may 
be, and to whatever extent they may 
draw upon it for the elements of life 
and strength. 

3. Our Lord here departs for a mo- 
ment from the figurative language, 
which he is employing to denote the in- 
timate connection between himself and 
his people, and seems to refer back to 
the symbolical act of washing, which he 
had performed upon his disciples dur- 
ing the feast (13:4-11). The word 
now, has here the sense of already, as 
opposed to a future time when they 
shall attain to a still higher measure of 
sanctification. They were already fruit- 
bearing branches, but would neverthe- 
Yol. III.— 16 



4 c Abide in me, and I in you. 
As the branch cannot bear fruit 
of itself, except it abide in the 

c Col. 1 : 23 ; Uo. 2 : 6. 

less be subject to the pruning process, 
in order to their increase in grace, and 
the fruits of holiness. The word pure, 
is not a varied form of expression 
for purgeth, which in the original is 
of kindred etymological signification, 
but has a more general sense. In v. 2, 
special reference is had to the re- 
moval from the branch of every thing 
superfluous and hurtful, and which 
would obstruct or divert the healthful 
flow of the sap from the vine, or injure 
the clusters of fruit which were form- 
ing and ripening. But here reference 
is had to a moral purity or cleanliness, 
as opposed to the defilement of sin. 
The word has, however, in this place a 
comparative sense. The disciples were 
in a measure freed from ignorance, pre- 
judice, and sin ; but they would be in- 
creasingly so, under the dispensation 
of the Spirit and the enlarged measure 
of grace which they would then enjoy. 
Through the word, &c. This was the 
great agent of their purification. It 
was to them spirit and life. So in his 
prayer (1*7 : 17), the word is declared 
to be the sanctifying agent of his peo- 
ple. See also v. 7. Hutcheson remarks 
on this passage that, "when the word 
is not Operative on men, it is no evi- 
dence that they are purged, or that 
what they seem to be, is real," Which 
I have spoken unto you. Reference is 
had principally to the instructions of Je- 
sus himself. But in a general sense, this 
includes the whole word of God, the 
Old as well as the New Testament. The 
Spirit of inspiration is the same in all 
parts of the sacred volume, and therefore 
41 all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, 
reproof, correction, and instruction in 
righteousness, that the man of God may 
be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto 
all good works." 2 Tim, 3 : 16, 17. 

4. The similitude of the vine and its 
branches, is here applied to the rela- 
tion which subsisted between our Lord 
and his disciples. This is more dis- 
tinctly brought out in v. 5. Abide in 



362 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



vine ; no more can ye, except ye 
abide in me. 

5 I am the vine, ye are the 
branches. He that abideth in 

me. It is here assumed, that they were 
already connected with him by a vital 
union, and this connection they are 
commanded to carefully preserve. The 
words abide in me, when regarded in 
the light of the similitude here made 
use of, signify that they should re- 
main in such connection with the 
vine, and bring forth such fruits of 
love and obedience, that the vine- 
dresser might not deem it necessary to 
remove them as worthless and unpro- 
ductive branches. Here the similitude 
however ends. They were not like the 
branches, incapable of volition and ef- 
fort to preserve the connection with 
the vine. They were rational men, 
free moral agents. They could see and 
appreciate the great good which would 
result from the connection established 
between them and Jesus Christ ; and 
therefore a command is addressed to 
them to abide in him, which could in 
no sense be applicable to the natural 
branches of a vine. No one then should 
so pervert this figure, as to make it 
teach that the connection of the be- 
liever with Jesus Christ is such, that no 
more responsibility for the maintenance 
of this bond of union rests upon him, 
than upon the branch which adheres to 
the vine. This feature of the similitude 
is thus referred to by Alford: "The 
natural strictness of the similitude is 
here departed from. The branch can- 
not sever itself from the vine ; but such 
a case supposed, every one will see the 
inevitable consequence. It is the per- 
mitted free will of the creature, which 
makes the difference between the 
branches in the two cases." And I in 
you, is not here a promise, but a part 
of the command, abide I in you. The 
relation of believers to Christ is so 
intimate, that his abiding in them is 
secured by the simple act of their abid- 
ing in him. Hence the performance of 
the command on the part of the believ- 
er, secures the indwelling of Christ des- 
ignated by the words, / in you. Al- 



ine, and I in him, the same bring- 
eth forth much d fruit ; for with- 
out me ye can do nothing. 

a Ho. 14 : 8 ; Phi. 1 : 11 ; & 4 : 13. 



ford expresses it: 'Take care that ye 
abide in me and I in you ; both these 
being necessary to the bringing forth 
fruit.' So also Stier : ' So abide in me 
that I may abide in you.' As the 
branch cannot, &c. This mutual con- 
nection is shown to be necessary to 
the bringing forth of fruit, as the con- 
nection of the branch with the vine is 
a necessary condition of its fruitfulness. 
Of itself ; literally, from itself, i. e. from 
its own unsupported, organic life. Ex- 
cept it abide in the vine. The idea is : 
' but can only bear fruit if it abide in 
the vine.' We must not supply, as the 
grammatical construction would seem 
to demand, the words of itself, from the 
preceding clause. That ceases to be a 
condition real or supposed, when the 
branch is connected with the vine. In 
such a case, there neither can be, nor 
is there needed any other source, 
whence the element of life and fruitful- 
ness is to be derived, than the vine 
itself. JS r o more can ye (bear fruit), ex- 
cept ye abide in vie. This shows that 
there must be such a living connection 
between Christ and the believer, that 
as the branch is united organically with 
the vine, and receives thence all its nu- 
triment and support, so the believer 
must draw all his spiritual life and 
strength from the Redeemer. Hence 
in the application, we must suppose 
no other connection of the unfruit- 
ful branch with the vine, than that 
which is external. The real connection 
is evinced only by the criterion here 
laid down, the bringing forth of fruit. 
Where this sign of a living connection 
with Christ is wanting, the evidence 
from a mere profession of his name be- 
fore men, is of no value. In the clause 
except ye abide in me, the words and I 
in you, are omitted, because the for- 
mer implies the latter and the repeti- 
tion from the first clause in the verse, 
where both conditions are expressed, 
would be unnecessary and cumbrous. 
5. In order that his disciples might 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XY 



363 



6 If a man ab>ide not in me, 
' he is cast forth as a branch, and 

ellt. 8:10; & 7:19. 

not mistake the point of the application, 
he emphatically expresses, in plain lan- 
guage what was implied in v. 4, that 
he himself was the Vine, and the disci- 
ples its branches. The pronoun /and 
ye, are emphatic in the original, and 
serve to render the relation of Christ to 
his disciples, denoted by this similitude, 
distinct and impressive. Ye are the 
brandies. This was addressed to the 
disciples, but is evidently true of all 
in every age, who by faith in Christ 
have become united to him, as the 
branch to the vine. It is strange that 
Webster and Wilkinson should say of 
this passage, as they do, " this justifies 
and explains the language of the Bap- 
tismal Service, ' seeing now that this 
child is regenerate and grafted (Rom. 
11 : 16-24) into the body of Christ's 
church.' " 2so proof whatever can be ad- 
duced from these words addressed to 
such men as Peter, James, John, and 
their fellow-disciples, that baptized in- 
fants are ' regenerate' and living branch- 
es of the Great Vine. He that abideth 
in me, &c. The sentiment of the preced- 
ing verse is here positively expressed, 
but with an enlargement of promise. 
What was cannot bear fruit in v. 4, is 
here bringeth forth much fruit. The 
idea is, that this living and abiding 
union with Christ is conducive to the 
highest perfection of a fruit-bearing 
branch, both in quantity and quality, 
for this latter element is without doubt 
implied in the general expression ynore 
fruit. The repetition from v. 4, of the 
phrase I in him, is designed to give 
emphatic prominence to the indwell- 
ing connection which mutually sub- 
sists between Christ and the believer. 
Tfie same is in the original highly em- 
phatic, this person (and no other) bring- 
eth forth, &c. The words he that abideth, 
&c, are placed absolutely in the sen- 
tence, the pronoun he being repeated in 
the same (literally this), which is thus 
rendered very prominent and emphatic. 
For without me, &c. The reason why 
those who abide in Christ bring forth 



is withered ; and men gather 
them, and cast them into the fire, 
and they are burned. 

much fruit, is here given in the form 
of a denial, that any fruit can be 
borne by one who is not thus vitally 
connected with Christ. Without me 
represents a branch that is severed 
from the vine, or what is the same 
thing, has no vital connection with it. 
He to whom this feature of the simili- 
tude applies, receives from Christ no 
power to bear fruit, and hence strives in 
his own unaided strength to produce 
such results as will indicate true disci- 
pleship. But in this he must prove un- 
successful. Christ says to every per- 
son who thus depends on his own 
righteousness for salvation and the 
fruits of holiness, without (or apart 
from) me ye can do nothing, i. e. can 
bring forth no spiritual fruit, or accom- 
plish any thing peculiar and appropriate 
to the true believer in Christ. Some 
refer the verb can do, to the bearing of 
fruit. But this is expressed by a dif- 
ferent verb in the original, and it is bet- 
ter therefore to give it the more gener- 
ic sense of doing good. This comports 
with the general scope of the passage, 
and adds force to the argument of the ne- 
cessity of the vital union with Christ here 
set forth and illustrated. The general 
sentiment is that separate and apart 
from him, not only can they bring 
forth no fruit, but can accomplish noth- 
ing whatever of good. 

6. The fearful end which awaits such 
as have no inward and real fellowship 
with Christ, is here depicted. If a man 
abide not in me. Apostasy from a real 
and vital union with Christ is not here 
referred to — although that danger is 
always regarded in God's word, as im- 
minent and only to be averted by pray- 
er and holy living in connection with 
his unchanging love — but an external 
profession of the name of Christ, with- 
out a living connection with him. The 
expression, if a man abide not in me, 
does not imply the termination of a 
living connection, but that true union 
and fellowship with Christ was never 
enjoyed by this worthless branch. There 



364 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



7 If yo abide in me, and nay 
words abide in you, f ye shall ask 

/ Yer. 16 ; ck 14 : 13, 14 ; & 16 : 23. 



is no true branch of the Vine that does 
not bear some fruit. It is a faithful and 
gracious promise, that even the most 
feeble and sickly of these living branch- 
es shall be cleansed by the vine-dress- 
er, so that they shall bring forth more 
fruit. Before the unproductive branch 
is cut off and cast forth to be burned, 
the evidence of its utter worthlessness 
is seen in its unproductive state. This 
unfruitfulness never appears in a branch 
so connected with the vine, as to be in 
full reception of its nutritious and fruit- 
producing sap. We do not intend by this 
to adopt or defend the supralapsarian 
error, that the true child of grace can- 
not in any sense whatever fall away. 
This he can and would do, were it not 
for the unchanging grace of God, which 
from the foundation of the world chose 
him to life everlasting, and keeps him 
in the path of truth and holy obedience. 
But what we contend for against Alford 
is, that " falling from grace" and " the 
steps of the fall," are not the teaching of 
this passage ; but the simple idea is, 
that those who have no living connec- 
tion with Christ, represented by abiding 
in him, are to be cut off eventually 
even from the outward and visible con- 
nection with his body, and cast forth 
with his other and more open enemies 
from his presence and favor. The diffi- 
culty, which here and elsewhere besets 
the exposition adopted by Stier and 
Alford, is their mistaking the warnings 
of God's word against apostasy, as proof 
that some will actually apostatize, in the 
very face of the plain declaration of our 
Lord (10 : 27-29), and of Paul (Rom. 8 : 
28-39 ; Phil. 1 : (l). It is by just such 
warnings as that contained in this verse, 
that saints "are kept by the power of 
God through faith unto salvation." 

But the question may arise, if this 
does not refer to such branches as have 
a real connection with the vine, how 
it can prove a warning to those who 
are the true children of God. The re- 
ply is very easy. No one except by 
continued holy Jiyjng and unwavering 



what ye will, and it shall be done 
unto you. 



faith in Christ, has evidence that he is 
one of the living branches ; and if he 
should presumptuously suppose he had 
become so confirmed in holiness, that 
such warnings, as those here ad- 
dressed to his disciples by Jesus Christ, 
had no application to him, this very 
presumption and self-confidence in his 
good estate would be the most alarm- 
ing evidence, that he had never been 
united to Christ as a living branch. 
As to Alford's explanation of the with- 
ering of the branch — which he seems 
to regard as a second step in apostasy 
from the truth — that " it has lost the 
supply of life-giving sap," is not this 
pressing the similitude too far ? Every 
branch in the natural vine has indeed 
a real and palpable connection with it ; 
but is this true of all the branches of the 
spiritual Vine ? Are there not some 
who have all the appearance of thrifty, 
vigorous, leafy branches, and yet in 
fact are dry and unproductive, and as it 
will appear when "the hidden things of 
dishonesty " are brought to light, were 
never in vital and organic connection 
with the Vine ? No one surely can de- 
ny this. If in accordance with the 
metaphorical language here made use 
of, such branches are lopped off 1 , is it 
strange that they are said to wither 
away and dry up ? The idea couched 
under this imagery is, that they shall 
no longer appear to the eye of man, as 
green and thrifty branches, but as they 
really are and have been from the be- 
ginning, worthless and unproductive, 
never having absorbed from the vine 
any of its life-giving and nutritious 
properties. Hutcheson's exposition of 
this passage is so clear and conclusive, 
that I can do the reader no better ser- 
vice than to quote in full his language. 
" The second argument pressing the ex- 
hortation is an enlargement of what is 
said, v. 2, and taken from the danger 
of apostasy, and which those professors 
will incur, who being outwardly, by visi- 
ble communion, in Christ, do not evi- 
dence the reality of their inward fellow- 



A. D. 



CHAPTER XT. 



365 



8 : ' Herein is my Father glo- 



a Mt. 5:16; Phi. 1:11. 
ACh. 8:31: & 18: 35. 



ship, by constant adherence to him and 
drawing virtue from him for fruitful- 
ness, bat do fall off and decline. This 
is held forth under the usual similitude, 
that as branches which do not incorpo- 
rate with the tree, but do hang to it, or 
fall off, are by the vine-dresser cast 
away, and having withered awhile, are 
gathered to be fuel for the fire, so 
rotten [not true] members who make 
apostasy arc cut off from Christ and in 
due time sent to the pit. Albeit no 
real saints can totally and finally fall 
away and perish, yet the elect have 
need that the danger of apostasy, and 
the dreadful wrath following upon it, 
be laid before them, to make them 
afraid of defection. Therefore is this 
threatening laid before the disciples, to 
press them to their duty, albeit it will 
only be verified in the outward, fruit- 
less branches, who are to be cut off ^r. 
2)." Is cast forth ; literally, was cast 
forth, the act being spoken of, as if the 
great day of retribution and of judg- 
ment were fully come, and its results 
already made a matter of history. See 
Ss. on v. 8, also 13 : 31. "Winer makes 
the tense equivalent to the present, with 
the additional idea, that the not 
abiding has the instantaneous conse- 
quence here spoken of, namely, the 
being cast forth as a withered branch. 
As a branch ; literally, as the branch, i. e. 
the unfruitful one referred to in v. 4. And 
men gather them, kc. Under this image- 
ry of the gathering together and burning 
of these dry and worthless branches, 
is depicted the awful end of those 
who profess a connection with Christ 
which they do not in reality possess. 

7. Having warned his disciples of the 
dreadful doom, which should overtake 
all such as evince by their unfruitful- 
ness that they have no living connec- 
tion with him, our Lord now promises 
to such as abide in him, the most 
fuU and gracious answer to all their 
petitions, and thus advises them, as 
to the best means of increasing their 
fruitfulness and maintaining their con- 



rified, that ye bear much fruit; 
A so shall ye be my disciples. 



nection with the true Tine. This verse 
therefore is very intimately connected 
with the preceding, and is a sort of mer- 
ciful equipoise to the severe language 
there employed to denote the fearful end 
of false professors and self-deceived 
souls. My words abide in you, is a va- 
ried expression for Tin you in vs. 4, 5. 
The word of Christ is his own presence. 
Where that dwells and forms the rule 
of conduct, he dwells. Hence the 
terms are convertible and substantially 
the same. Ye shall ash what ye will, 
&c. This is not a promise, as some 
absurdly suppose, that every request 
made by Christ's disciples shall be 
granted ; but that such petitions as 
result from his indwelling word, and 
are therefore in accordance with the 
mind of the Spirit, shall be heard and 
answered. See Xs. on Matt. 7:7; 21 : 
22. The verb shall ask, is read by 
Stier and Alford, as an imperative, ask 
what ye will. In such a case, the verb 
would be used proleptically for the 
future. It shall be done unto ; literally, 
it shall happen for you, i. e. your re- 
quest shall be granted. 

8. The fruitfulness of the branch 
having been declared to be the sole 
evidence of its vital connection with 
the Tine, our Lord proceeds to show 
that the Father is glorified by the abun- 
dant fruit which his disciples should 
bear, and thus he furnishes a powerful 
incentive to the attainment of this es- 
sential virtue. "We should be cautious, 
however, not to refer the bearing of 
fruit, which is here made the criterion 
of true discipleship and the means of 
glorifying the Father, to the external 
results only which crown a life of activ- 
ity in the service of Christ. These are 
included in the expression, but the 
main reference is to the growth of 
grace in the soul, the fruits of the Spirit 
(Gal. 5 : 22, 23), as evinced by a close 
walk with God, and his Son Jesus 
Christ. This inward life will always be 
productive, to a greater or less extent, 
of the external fruits of piety, and thus 



366 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



9 As the Father hath loved 
me, so have I loved you : con- 
tinue ye in my love. 

10 'If ye keep my command- 

i Ch. 14 : 15, 21, 23. 



others will be enabled to see the evi- 
dence of true discipleship, and be led 
to glorify their Father which is in hea- 
ven (Matt. 5 : 16). Herein ; literally, in 
this, reference being had to the clause, 
that ye bear much fruit (see N. on v. 
5). Is glorified. Here also as in v. 6, 
the aorist, was glorified, is employed for 
the future, to denote certain fulfilment, 
as though the act were already accom- 
plished. See N. on v. G. As it regards 
this glorification of the Father, the 
reader is referred to my Note on 13 : 
31. It will suffice here to remark, that 
it results from the essential unity of 
the Father with the Son, by which any 
honor conferred upon the latter is vir- 
tually bestowed upon the other. A life 
of piety and active benevolence illus- 
trates also the knowledge and fear of 
God, and conduces to the increase of 
vital godliness in others. So shall ye be, 
&c. This is the condition of discipleship 
in the school of Christ. Shall be ; literal- 
ly, shall become, i. e. prove yourselves to 
be. Two results are here represented as 
following their abundant fruitfulness, 
namely, the glorification of the Father, 
and the evidence of their true disciple- 
ship. 

9. Under the similitude of the vine 
and its branches, our Lord had illus- 
trated the vital and intimate connec- 
tion which subsists between him and 
his disciples. He now goes on to show, 
that this connection is one of love, 
having the same characteristics as that 
which subsists between the Father and 
Son. As ; more literally, according as, 
just as. The Father's love to him, and 
his love to his disciples, are declared to 
be of the very same kind. The pos- 
session of this love was essential to the 
relation which they sustained to him as 
his true disciples, and hence they were to 
continue in it. The same verb is here 
made use of, as in vs. 4, 5, 6, 7, where 
they were directed to abide in him, as 



ments, ye shall abide in my love ; 
even as I have kept my Father's 
commandments, and abide in his 
love. 



the true and living branch abideth in 
the vine. Now he shows that this in- 
herence in him is one of love. It is to 
be noted that it is a continuance in his 
love, which is here enjoined upon the 
disciples. This is the great bond of 
union, that Christ first loved them, and 
gave himself to die for them, and the 
sense of this marvellous love begets 
in them a corresponding love for him. 
They were therefore by their love and 
obedience, to show themselves worthy 
recipients of his love, and thus se- 
cure its continuance. As the life- 
giving sap flows forth from the vine 
through all its branches, so the love of 
Christ is shed abroad in the heart of 
the believer, and becomes the life of 
the soul. A discontinuance in this love 
would be a severing of the branch from 
the Yine, and hence the abiding in 
Christ as the branch abides in the vine 
(see v. 4), is that abiding in his love 
which is here enjoined. 

10. Prayer in v. 7 was adduced as a 
means of securing and perpetuating 
this vital union with Christ. Obedience 
to our Saviour's commands is here 
specified, as another way of effecting 
the continuance in his love. There is 
no evidence of the soul's connection 
with Christ, only as it is furnished in a 
life of faithful obedience to his revealed 
will (see 14 : 21). But not only is this 
obedience the proof of true discipleship, 
it is here declared to be the very means 
of indissolubly uniting the soul to 
Christ. The verb keep, is the same as 
that which was employed in 14:21, 
23, 24, and refers not to external obe- 
dience only, but to that of the heart. 
Shall abide is the same verb employed 
to denote the connection of the vine 
with the branch (v. 4), and the union of 
the disciples with him, designated in 
vs. 4, 5, 6, 7, by the phrase abiding in 
him. In my love, i. e. his love for 
them as in v. 9. No one should so 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XV. 



367 



11 These things have I spoken 
unto you, that my joy might re- 
main in you, and k that your joy 
might be full. 

iCh. 13:24; & 17:13; 1 Jo. 1:4. 

lose sight of the analogies of the vine 
sending forth its sap through the 
branches, as to suppose that this pri- 
marily means the love of the disciples 
for him. See 1 John 4: 19. Even as 
I have kept, &c. Here again we have 
our Lord's obedience to his Father's 
command and his continuance in His 
love, as an illustration and proof, that 
obedience on their part should be fol- 
lowed by a continuance in his love. 
The great idea of the whole passage is, 
that there exists between Christ and 
the believer the same basis of love, as 
that upon which rests the ineffable 
union of the Father and Son. The 
analogy between his obedience to the 
Father and theirs to him, is the more 
perfect and striking, because it refers 
to the days of his humiliation on earth, 
when he stooped to the condition of 
a man of sorrows and one acquainted 
with grief (Isa. 53 : 3). As his devotion 
to his Father's will, while thus entering 
into the physical infirmities of our na- 
ture, secured His full and abiding love ; 
so our obedience, amidst the tempta- 
tions of life, will ensure to us his abid- 
ing love. He is in this as in other re- 
spects our great pattern, and it should 
be our chief aim to imitate him in his 
example of perfect love and obedience. 
11. Our Lord again uses a form of 
speech, which would seem to imply that 
he was about to bring his discourse to 
a close. See Ns. on 14 : 25, 29. But 
either through the eagerness of his 
disciples to hear more, or the desire on 
his part to impress the truth upon their 
mind by other considerations, he con- 
tinues his discourse. Alford finds in 
this and the places above cited, a pro- 
lepsis, that is, a hastening to the end of 
his discourse, and treating it as though 
it were ended. The words have I spoken, 
are then anticipatory of what he might 
more properly utter at the end of his 
discourse (see N. on 16 : 1). Such in- 



12 l This is my commandment, 
That ye love one another, as I 
have loved you. 

ZCli. 13:34;lTa. 4: 9; lPe.4:S; 1 Jo. 3: 11; 

&4:21. 

terjected sentences served to show his 
object in thus addressing them. That 
(i. e. in order that) introduces the pur- 
pose of his discourse. My joy ; literally, 
the joy (which is) mine, and hence was 
a gift at his own disposal. Might re- 
main in you. Our Lord here refers to 
another form of his indwelling in his 
people. In v. 4, it was / in you, and in 
v. 5, i" in him. Under a varied form 
of expression, his indwelling presence 
is denoted in v. 7, by my words abide in 
you. Here it is, my joy might remain in 
you. The verb is the same in all these 
instances, and refers to a fixed and 
permanent dwelling in the soul of the 
believer. There is a beautifully pro- 
gressive order in these ideas. 1, His 
presence ; 2, His words; 3, His joy at 
their love, faith, and obedience. The 
obvious antithesis between my joy and 
your joy, shows that it is our Lord's 
joy over his faithful and beloved dis- 
ciples, and not their joy concerning 
him, or that which proceeds from him, 
to which reference is had. Alford takes 
it in the high and extended sense of his 
own holy exultation, the joy of the 
Son in the consciousness of the love of 
God and of his unity with the Father 
(see v. 10). I prefer, however, to re- 
strict this indwelling joy of Jesus to 
that which results from the unity of 
the believer with him, and the fruits of 
holiness which are consequent thereon. 
And that your joy might be full, i. e. 
perfected, rendered complete. This 
clause is grammatically dependent upon, 
these words have I spoken unto you, yet 
the joy spoken of is connected with, 
and flows from the indwelling joy of 
Jesus. When that enters and takes 
possession of the heart, it awakens a 
corresponding emotion in the believer, 
and the fulness of the one secures the 
fulness and perfection of the other. 

12. This is my commandment. In 
13 : 34, it is styled a "new command- 



368 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



13 m Greater love hath no man 
than this, that a man lay down 
his life for his friends. 

14 "Ye are my friends, if ye 
do whatsoever I command you. 

mCh. 10:11, 15; Eo. 5:7, 8; Ep. 5:2; 1 Jo. 
3 ■ 16 

n Ch. 14 : 15, 23 ; see Mt. 12 : 50. 



ment " (on which see Note). It appears 
however, from v. 10, that this was not 
his only commandment. It was doubt- 
less the sum and substance of all the 
rest, as love is the fulfilling of the law 
(Rom. 3 : 10), and hence was referred to 
by our Lord at one time, as a new, and at 
another, as his commandment. As J 
have loved, &c. "The line of thought 
is continued from vs. 9, 10. As my 
Father hath loved me, so have I loved 
you ; as I have loved you, so love ye 
one another." Webster and Wilkinson. 
13. The greatness of his love for 
them, is now shown in his readiness to 
lay down his life in their behalf With 
this verse compare (Rom. 5 : Y— 10, 
where the love of Christ is declared to be 
exemplified in the fact, that he died for 
those who were yet sinners. This 
shows clearly that ./or (or in behalf of ') 
his friends, is not to be so interpreted, 
as to restrict Christ's death to the bene- 
fit of his friends only. Paul adduces 
the death of Jesus for a sinful world, 
as one of the highest examples of 
love which can be conceived. But our 
Lord is here conversing with his dis- 
ciples, and cites an example of more 
common occurrence, as the self-sacri- 
fice of a man for his friends. The ex- 
pression greater love, is not to be taken 
then in an absolute, but in a relative 
sense, of the devotion of a man to his 
friends. No greater love to a friend 
could be exhibited, than a readiness to 
lay down one's life in his behalf. But 
in a higher and more absolute sense, 
Paul points to our Lord's death for 
those who were his enemies, as one 
of the most vivid exhibitions of the 
divine love which has ever been made : 
"God commendeth his love toward us, 
in, that while we were yet sinners, 
Christ died for us." Stier remarks, 



15 Henceforth I call you not 
servants ; for the servant know- 
eth not what his lord doeth : but 
I have called you friends ; " for 
all things that I have heard of 
my Father I have made known 
unto you. 

o Sec Ge. 18 : IT ; ch. IT : 26 ; Ac. 20 : 2T. 

that " our Lord does not speak of the 
redeeming design of his death, as in 
Rom. 5 : 8, but of that point of similar- 
ity in his great love, which we may 
recognize and imitate." These words of 
Jesus partake of the nature of an apho- 
rism or proverbial saying. 

14. This verse contains the applica- 
tion of the general truth stated in v. 
13. Jesus does not expressly say, that 
he is about to manifest this highest ex- 
pression of human love, by laying down 
his life for his disciples. But the decla- 
rations of his approaching death which 
at other times he had made, together 
with the affecting rite which he had 
just established, furnished abundant 
evidence, that in calling the disciples 
his friends, he meant to be understood 
that he was about to give this mark of 
friendship. The friends in v. 13, are 
here identified with those whom Jesus 
was now addressing. ' Ye are my 
friends, the very ones to whom I have 
just made reference, as those for whom 
it would be the highest manifestation 
of love for one to die.' When our 
Lord uttered the saying contained in 
v. 13, the disciples may have had mis- 
givings, whether they were such true 
and devoted friends of Jesus, as to 
warrant his giving himself as such an 
example of love in their behalf. Our 
Lord dispels all fear and apprehension 
of this sort, by asserting that they 
were his friends, but only on the ground 
that they remained steadfast in love 
and obedience. If ye do, &c. Obedi- 
ence to our Saviour's commands is the 
only evidence which any of his follow- 
ers can have, that they are his friends, 
and entitled through grace to the bene- 
fits of his death. 

15. Our Lord confirms the marvel- 
lous declaration which he had just made, 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XV. 
brin 



369 



16 p Ye have not chosen me, 
but I have chosen you, and q or- 
dained you, that ye should go and 

p Ch. 6 : 70 ; & 13 : 18 ; 1 Jo. 4 : 10, 19. 
q Mt.28:19;Ma.l6:15;CoLl:6. 

that they were his friends, by averring 
that henceforth be should address them 
by this appellation, and no longer call 
them servants. The word henceforth, 
would seem to imply, that up to this 
time he had designated them as ser- 
vants. This must be taken in a modi- 
fied sense. He had never called them 
servants in the low and menial sense of 
the term. Yet as avc see from 13: 13, 
1-1, he had permitted himself to be ad- 
dressed as their Lord and Master, which 
implies the correlative, servant, attend- 
ant, follower. But henceforth even 
this mode of expression was to be 
dropped, and he was to address them 
simply and solely as his friends. Alford 
thinks that this is proleptically spoken 
of the state in which he would afterward 
place them under the Spirit. But it 
seems rather to suit the intimate rela- 
tionship which he was now establishing 
with them, to make this assertion of 
his to take immediate effect. For the 
servant knowcth. not, &c. The confi- 
dence reposed in them was proof that 
they were admitted to the most inti- 
mate friendship, and no longer sustained 
to him the relation of servants. Our 
Lord had now divulged many things to 
them, of which they had before been ig- 
norant. This enlightenment would be 
more full and perfect under the dispen- 
sation of the Spirit; yet enough had 
already been communicated to them to 
show, that they were no longer to be 
styled servants, but to be addressed 
as friends. Knoiceth not what his lord 
doeth, i. e. is not admitted to his coun- 
sels, or made the confidant of his plans 
and intentions. This is a general 
truth of universal acceptance. A fa- 
vorite servant may be honored with 
his master's confidence, but never so as 
to ignore or abrogate the relation of 
master and servant which exists between 
them. Indeed the very condescension 
of such confidential intercourse on the 
Vol. III.— 16* 



g forth fruit, and that your 
fruit should remain ; that r what- 
soever ye shall ask of the Father 
in my name, he may give it you. 

r Vcr. 7 ; ch. 14 : 13. 



part of the master, oftentimes awakens 
in the servant the keenest sense of his 
low condition, and the most bitter re- 
grets of his want of personal freedom. 
Have called. The verb is one of strong- 
er import than the one translated call, 
in the former clause, having the sense 
of declaring, pronouncing. The clause 
for all things, &c, contains the proof 
that they had been admitted to terms of 
most intimate friendship, and antitheti- 
cally corresponds to the clause, for the 
servant knowcth not what his lord doeth. 
It is noticeable how our Lord in the 
words, all things which I have heard of 
my Father, continues to give prominence 
to his official subordination to the Fa- 
ther. In referring however, as he does 
here, to his preexistent state in the 
bosom of God, from whom he had re- 
ceived the things which he was com- 
missioned to reveal to man, he also 
holds out with great distinctness, his 
essential unity with the Father, which 
in so many instances he avers to exist. 
Have made. He had already revealed 
many things to them ; he would make 
still further and more perfect revela- 
tions through the agency of the prom- 
ised Spirit. 

16. As he had insisted so strongly 
upon their obedience to his commands, 
as an evidence of his abiding love (v. 5), 
and a means of continuance therein (v. 
10), there was danger that they should 
attribute to it a kind of saving virtue. 
He therefore effectually prevents such a 
mistake, by averring that he had chosen 
them to a life of holiness and the en- 
joyment of his favor. Their good 
works were not the cause of this, for 
their choice to salvation preceded any 
act of obedience which they had per- 
formed. The obligation was therefore 
all on their side. The verb rendered 
have chosen, literally signifies, to choose, 
or select out, and in the middle voice 
here used, to choose out for one's self 



370 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



i. c. for one's own use, or in accord- 
ance with one's own pleasure. Hence it 
signifies a choice with the idea of favor, 
approval, and love. Ye have not chosen 
me. No one ever chooses Jesus in this 
evangelical sense of the word, until 
inclined thereto by the sovereign pur- 
pose and grace of God through Jesus 
Christ. But I have chosen you. The 
same verb is employed, but with a vast- 
ly enlarged sense. On the part of the 
creature, it would at best be but a finite 
choice, subject to the fitful impulses of 
a mind at natural enmity with God and 
averse to holiness. But when used to 
denote the divine choice of some to 
everlasting life, it refers to a purpose 
as immutable as the very existence of 
God. It embraces all those means and 
agencies, by which the purpose is to be 
rendered effectual in the conversion 
and sanctification of all God's elect. 
In a word, it comprehends the whole 
economy of redemption, in its relation 
to the salvation of the believer from 
the power and dominion of sin and 
death. Ordained has here the sense of 
appointed. Olshausen and Stier, after 
Chrysostora and some of the old inter- 
preters, make it equivalent in sense to 
planted, in order to conform to the fol- 
lowing words, bring forth fruit. So 
Theophylact remarks, "that the Son 
here like the Father, appears as a hus- 
bandman, and planter of vines." Some 
find a simple reference to the apostolic 
appointment of the disciples. But this 
does not meet the wants of the passage, 
which has a deeper signification than 
the mere appointment to an official ser- 
vice in the church. Such an exposition 
also forces an incongruous sense upon 
the following words, should go and bring 
forth fruit, which refer not to the ex- 
ternal results of their mission, but to 
the personal fruits of holiness wrought 
in them by the Spirit. The verb should 
go, is employed to give life to the sen- 
timent, the idea being that of a man 
who having been appointed to a service 
or duty, enters actively upon his labors. 
It is a picturesque expression denoting 
living energy and activity, a going forth 
under a profound sense of responsibili- 
ty, and an addressing of one's self | 



with all his powers to the service as- 
signed him. If in conformity with the 
figurative language which follows, or- 
dained is to be regarded as correspond- 
ing to the planting of fruit-bearing 
trees, then the verb should go, answers 
to the springing up of these spiritual 
trees, and their developed growth in 
wide-spread and vigorous branches. 
Bring forth fruit, denotes the result 
of their divine appointment to a life of 
activity in Christ's service. This is fur- 
ther stated in the next clause, that your 
fruit should remain, which refers not 
so much to the external fruits or re- 
sults of obedience, as to the permanent 
effect of a life of obedience and love to 
Christ upon the soul of the believer. 
So Stier: "it is the consummation of 
personal salvation, the ripening into 
men of God, full of good works and 
holy activity." This is expressed in 
different imagery in Eph. 4:13, as a 
" coming in the unity of the faith, and of 
the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a 
perfect man, unto the measure of the sta- 
ture of the fulness of Christ ; " and in 
Eph. 3 : 21, 22, as a " growing unto a holy 
temple in the Lord, for a habitation of 
God through the Spirit." Remain would 
have been better translated, abide, the 
same verb being employed as in vs. 4, 
5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11. TJiat whatsoever ye 
shall ask, &c. It will be seen by a com- 
parison of this passage with 14 : 13 (on 
which see Note), that there is a slight 
verbal variation. The Father is here 
designated as the one who bestows the 
blessing prayed for, while there our 
Lord promises that he will bestow the 
blessing. Such language, in which 
an act is predicated of one and then of 
the other, establishes beyond a doubt 
the union and equality of the Father 
and the Son. This grace of prayer is 
not to be regarded, as the end or pur- 
pose of this divine calling and appoint- 
ment. Alford makes the clause 
"parallel with the preceding that ye 
should go, &c, and not the result of it, 
the two, the bringing forth of fruit and 
the obtaining answer to prayer, being 
coordinate with each other." The 
promise is by no means to be regarded 
as of posterior fulfilment to that in 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XV. 



17 8 These things I command 
you, that 3''e love one another. 

18 'If the world hate you, ye 



the preceding clause, but as retrospec- 
tive, and having its proper position in 
immediate dependence on the clause 
ordained you, and synchronizing with 
the going forth to the activities of the 
Christian life. Thus it is in the experi- 
ence of the believer. Prayer accompa- 
nies and gives success to all Christian ef- 
fort. Prayer is the great means of sanc- 
tification and growth in grace. Prayer 
is the very life and essence of that going 
forth in the Christian life, which is fol- 
lowed by the fruits of holiness. In 
regard to the terms of the promise here 
made connected with prayer, see X. on 
14:13. 

17. This is not the commencement 
of a new subject or topic, but the sum- 
mation of that which our Lord had 
previously said. As new grounds and 
occasions of mutual love are evolved in 
the progress of his discourse, he repeats 
and presses this duty, and thus evinces 
his sense of the importance of this 
new and great commandment which he 
had given them (13 : 34; 15:12). The 
plural these things, is thought by Web- 
ster and Wilkinson, to refer forward to 
the clause that ye love one another, the 
plural being employed instead of the 
singular for the sake of emphasis. But 
while classical usage permits this, yet 
it should never be assumed as the basis 
of construction, unless there is a com- 
manding reason for such a substitution 
of number. Such a reason does not 
exist here ; and when we take into 
view, that this pronoun almost always 
refers to what immediately precedes, 
we cannot doubt that these tilings, refers 
to what he had just spoken, and that 
the clause that ye love one another, is 
intended as a cause or reason why he 
had thus addressed them. This gives 
to his new and great commandment 
(13 : 34) a prominence, making it not 
only obligatory as his command, but 
the result of a life of holv living and 



obedience to Christ's 



Alford 



well paraphrases it: "The object of 



know that it 
hated you. 

s Yer. 12. 



371 

hated me before it 

<i Jo. 3:1, 13. 



my enjoining these things on you is for 
all (since v. 12 has been an expansion 
of as I have loved you), that ye love one 
another (see 1 John 4 : 11)." 

18. The foregoing reference to the 
mutual love of his disciples, naturally 
suggested by way of contrast the enmi- 
ty of the world which he had himself 
experienced in so eminent a degree, 
and which would in like manner be 
visited upon them. If the world hate 
you, does not imply doubt or contingen- 
j cy, but is an actual assertion expressed 
hypothetically. Indeed the idea is 
strengthened, by thus assuming the 
world's enmity as an actual fact, instead 
of first asserting the fact and then put- 
ting it in a hypothetical form. If the 
world hate. The world's hatred is here 
proleptically spoken of, for that which 
after his death they should more fully 
experience. Our Lord himself was now 
the chief object of its hatred. Ye know. 
The disciples w T ere by no means igno- 
rant of the deadly hatred borne to Je- 
sus by the enemies of truth. Alford 
reads this as probably an imperative, 
know ye that it hated me. The most 
emphatic proof of this was yet to come. 
The disciples had little conception of 
the desperate and malignant persever- 
ance, with which on the very next day 
the enemies of Jesus would strive to 
effect his death, or the jeers and mock- 
ery with which they w : ould taunt him 
while enduring the agony of the cross. 
Still they were not ignorant, that during 
the whole time of his public ministry 
he had been the object of their unre- 
lenting hatred, which found expression 
on every occasion in which he came in 
contact with them. Before it hated 
you ; literally, first of you. See N. on 
1:15. This form of expression is some- 
times used by English writers. Thus 
Milton: ' Adam the goodliest (man) of 
men since born, 1 i. e. goodlier than any 
man since born. In a compound form, 
the superlative is found with the same 
usage in Col. 1:15. 



372 



JOHN. 



[A. D. S3. 



19 "If ye were of the world, 
the world would love his own ; 
but x because } r c are not of the 
world, but I have chosen you out 
of the world, therefore the world 
hateth you. 

ulJo. 4:5. a; Ch. 17:14. 

y Mt. 10 : 24 ; Lu. 6 : 40 ; ch. 13 : 16. 



19. The reason of this hatred which 
they were to expect from the world, is 
here given. If ye were of the world, is a 
form of hypothesis which denies that 
such was the actual fact. Of the world 
does not mean specifically, on the side 
of the world, but conformed to its cus- 
toms and usages, and actuated by its 
governing principles. The idea of their 
being chosen out of the world (v. 16), 
and therefore deriving their religious 
views and principles from a different 
source, is what is intended specifically 
by the expression. The imperfect tense 
covers all their past life, so far at least, 
as was embraced in their connection 
with him as his disciples. From their 
earliest discipleship, they had given 
ample evidence of being actuated by a 
different spirit than that which possess- 
ed the natural man, and hence they 
could not expect the world's friendship, 
which was enmity with God (Jam. 4 : 
4). His own (more properly its own) 
refers to that which is identical in na- 
ture, and actuated by the same general 
principle. The love which the world 
is here said to have for its own, is not 
such as to promote union and fellow- 
ship among bad men. Wars, emula- 
tions, strifes, mark the whole course of 
the world's history. "In this loving 
their own, the children of this world 
fall into hating one another." Alford. 
It is only in opposition to truth and 
hatred to the followers of Jesus, that 
the men of the world arc united, and it 
is in reference to this hatred to every 
thing that is good, that the world is 
said to love its own. But because, &c. 
The preceding sentiment, according to 
John's usage, is repeated in the nega- 
tive form, with the additional idea fully 
expressed, that it is because they are 
not of the world, that they arc the ob- 



20 Kemember the word that I 
said unto you, "The servant is 
not greater than his lord. If 
they have persecuted me, they 
will also persecute you ; 2 if they 
have kept my saying, they will 
keep yours also. 

» Ez. 3 : 7. 



ject of its hatred. This was implied in 
the words, if ye were of this world, kc. 
This because, has the twofold significancy 
of furnishing the reason why the disci- 
ples were hated by the world, and of 
keeping before them the fact, that they 
were formerly of that very world which 
was now arrayed in such deadly opposi- 
tion to Jesus and all his followers. 
Thus while the declaration that they 
had been chosen out of the world, was 
adapted to inspire joy at the grace 
which thus translated them from dark- 
ness into the kingdom of God's dear 
Son, it was also a remembrance which 
would beget humility in view of their 
previous lost condition, and inspire 
them with pity instead of hatred, to the 
world now opposed to them. The 
clause, but I have chosen you out of the 
world (see v. 16), is antithetic to ye are 
not of the world, and serves to fix more 
definitely and emphatically its meaning. 
Out of the world, is that form in Greek, 
which denotes internal separation. 
They had been under the full influ- 
ence of worldly aims, purposes, and 
principles, but through the sovereign 
grace of God, had been chosen from a 
life of sin to one of holiness and useful- 
ness. Hence they might expect to in- 
cur in full degree the world's hatred 
and opposition. Therefore or on ac- 
count of this, refers to the previous 
clause, and establishes fully the rela- 
tion of causality, which that clause sus- 
tains to the one that follows. It is no- 
ticeable that the world, is here in a sin- 
gle verse repeated five times. This is 
not accidental, but designed to give 
prominence to the contrast between the 
enemies of truth and his disciples. 

20. Remember the word that I said 
unto you. Reference is had to 13 : 16, 
where the proverbial expression here 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XV. 



373 



quoted, was employed in a somewhat dif- 
ferent connection. There it had refer- 
ence to their conduct to one another, 
in the light of the example which he 
had just set them of humility and love. 
Here it is cited in proof, that they must 
expect no better treatment frGm the 
world, than He, their Master, had re- 
ceived. This is evident from the appli- 
cation which he himself makes in the 
following clause, if they have persecuted 
me, &c. This adage had before been 
cited (see Matt. 10 : 24, 25), and for 
the same purpose as here, to show that 
his disciples could not expect exemp- 
tion from persecution, when their Mus- 
ter had suffered from it. For the 
verbal explanations, see Ns. on 13 : 16 ; 
Matt. 10 : 24, 25. If they have perse- 
cuted me. This form of supposition, 
adopted to give emphasis to the infer- 
ence they will also persecute you, does 
not imply doubt as to the fact of his 
being persecuted. Such forms of hy- 
pothesis are consistent with the most 
positive declaration of the truth of the 
supposition. See N. on v. 18. The 
verb in both these clauses, is in the 
plural. No subject is expressed in the 
original, but the pronoun they, is readily 
supplied from the preceding noun 
world, which is put in a collective sense 
for the individuals comprising it. TJiey 
will also persecute you. The future is 
here employed, because the disciples 
had not yet been called to the endur- 
ance of persecution in the cause of 
Christ. That sign of discipleship and 
evidence of their love for Jesus, was 
yet in the future. If they have kept my 
saying, &c. These words have furnished 
much difficulty, because in the connec- 
tion in which they here stand, the im- 
plication would seem to be, that the 
world as such had kept our Lord's say- 
ing. Hence some expositors have 
sought to evade the difficulty, by tak- 
ing the verb in the sense of have watch- 
ed with malicious intent. But this is a 
meaning that cannot in any manner be 
attached to the verb, which is the very 
one employe-d in v. 10, to denote the 
obedience to be rendered by the disci- 
ples to our Lord's commands. Others 
give to the verb an ironical sense. 



But if our Lord ever employed irony, 
which is quite doubtful, the solemnity 
and deep tenderness of this discourse 
would render it here quite inappropri- 
ate. Another mode of solving the dif- 
ficulty, is to affix to the hypothetical 
if a negative idea, and thus make it 
equivalent to if not. But all the rules 
of interpretation would then require, 
that the preceding if should have a 
like negative sense, if they have not 
persecuted me, which would obviously 
be the very opposite to the true mean- 
ing. The only meaning which is de- 
fensible, is that which lies upon the 
face of the passage, and which refers 
the verb to a true observance of the 
sayings of Christ, a meaning which it 
has in this whole discourse (see 9:16; 
14: 15, 21, 23, 24; 15: 10, 20), and in 
other portions of John's gospel (8 : 51, 
52, 55 ;' 1 John 2:5; Rev. 2:26; 3 : 
8, 10), and also in the other Evangel- 
ists (Matt. 19:17; 23 : 3 ; Mark 7 : 9). 
The word is here employed in a sense 
strongly antithetic to that of the verb 
persecute, in the preceding sentence, 
which implies the idea of disobedience 
to Christ's words. The assumption that 
they would obey the words of Christ, is 
here made simply to illustrate the prin- 
ciple which he had laid down, that the 
disciples must expect a like treatment 
with their Master, whether that were 
characterized by disobedience and op- 
position, or obedience and submis- 
sion to his will. The form of the sup- 
position corresponds to that of the 
preceding one, and contains in itself 
nothing which would imply a doubt of 
the realization of the obedience refer- 
red to. The actual fact so contrary to 
the terms of the hypothesis, is clearly 
evolved in the context. The simple 
object of the twofold supposition, is to 
embrace the whole conduct of men in 
regard to Christ, and establish the fact, 
that whatever that conduct might be, 
whether friendly or adverse, the disci- 
ples could expect no different treat- 
ment when they went forth in his 
name. 

21. The hypothesis, made in the pre- 
ceding verse for the purpose of illus- 
trating the truth that Christ and his 



374 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



21 But a all these things will 
they do unto you for nay name's 
sake, because they know not him 
that sent me. 

a Mt. 10: 22 ; & 24 : 9 ; cli. 16 : 3. 

followers have the same common 
friends and enemies, was liable to be 
misapprehended. The world's hatred 
had not been affirmed in express and 
positive language, and the disciples 
might suppose that it would look with 
indifference upon their mission to con- 
vert men. Hence Jesus guards against 
such an impression, by averring that 
they would have to encounter opposi- 
tion and persecution for his name's 
sake ; and that the supposition that the 
world would keep either his or their 
sayings, was what would never be re- 
alized. This verse therefore is explica- 
tive of the preceding one, showing 
what treatment his disciples would re- 
ceive from a world, whose hostility to 
their Master was so rank and deadly. 
But is adversative to the obedience to 
his words, assumed in the close of the 
preceding verse. 'If they have kept 
my saying, they will keep yours also ; 
but they have not kept my saying, and 
therefore will do all these things? i. e. 
will manifest the hatred and persecut- 
ing spirit, spoken of in vs. 18-20. For 
my name's sake. Parallel to this is 
Matt. 10 : 22, on which see Note. The 
name of Christ is put for his person, 
and any expression of attachment to 
him, is here declared to bring upon his 
followers hatred and persecution. This 
active persecuting hatred is illustrated 
in the whole history of the church of 
Christ. Because they know not him, 
&c. They have no spiritual conception 
of God, although they profess to know 
and acknowledge him. Not recogniz- 
ing therefore the true character and 
mission of His Son Jesus Christ, they 
hate and persecute both him and his 
followers. Thus their hatred to the 
truth and perverse rejection of both Je- 
sus and his followers, are traced back 
to their simplest element, ignorance of 
God and his ways. Our Saviour refers 
here to the great truth to which he 



22 b If I had not come and 
spoken unto them, they had not 
had sin ; c hut now they have no 
cloak for their sin. 



&Ch. 9:41. 



cEo. 1:20; Ja. 4:17. 



had given such frequent utterance, that 
a knowledge of the Father involved a 
knowledge of the Son, and that who- 
ever knew not. the Son, was ignorant 
also of the Father. It is this latter 
form of the proposition which attaches 
such inexcusable guilt to their igno- 
rance of God ; for had they believed on 
Jesus, whom the Father sent into the 
world to reveal to men the character 
and will of the invisible God, they 
would have believed on the Father, 
and attained to that knowledge of 
Him which would have insured His 
presence and blessing. This great sin 
in neglecting the only way of arriving 
at the knowledge of GGd through His 
Son Jesus Christ, is brought out fully 
in the following verse. 

22. If I had not come from that God 
of whom they are so profoundly igno- 
rant. Our Lord never refers to him- 
self, as one born into the world in the 
ordinary way of human generation, but 
as having come forth from the Father. 
His preexistent state is thus kept ever 
before the mind, in all his discourses. 
Here it receives more than ordinary 
prominence from the phrase him that 
sent me, in the preceding verse, and 
had come, in this ; for in the declaration 
which he was about to make, the divin- 
ity of his mission was that which en- 
hanced the sin of rejecting him, so that 
in comparison with it, all other and 
previous sins Avere comparatively of no 
account. And spoken unto them. Our 
Lord's mission was not a secret or si- 
lent one. In numerous ways by his 
words and wondrous works, he sought 
to win men to the knowledge of the 
Father who had sent him. No one 
could plead in extenuation of his unbe- 
lief, that his faith had been demanded 
in a Messiah who had kept himself 
aloof from the world, or had spoken ob- 
scurely and enigmatically of the great 
truths which he had been commissioned 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XV. 



375 



to reveal. Jesus had passed from town 
to town, and city to city, throughout 
the whole land. He had addressed the 
people in the plainest and most unam- 
biguous language. He had expounded 
the law of God in all its spirituality ; 
showed how the Messianic prophecies 
were fulfilled in himself; pointed man 
to the only way of salvation through 
belief in him; and confirmed his teach- 
ings by the most stupendous miracles 
which had ever been wrought on earth. 
He had therefore spoken to them with a 
fulness and authority of utterance, that 
left them without any excuse. They 
had not had sin. This is not spoken of 
sin in general, for this they would have 
had, if Jesus had not come and spoken 
unto them. The sin of unbelief and 
hatred to him, is the one evidently in- 
tended to be conveyed in the expres- 
sion. Stier virtually remarks, that un- 
belief is. the great sin which in John's 
gospel is charged upon the Jews, and 
that "this sentence does not make the 
idle assertion: 'If I had not come they 
would not have fallen into the sin of 
unbelief ;' but unbelief would not have 
become their last, complete, and ruin- 
ing sin. 1 ' The objection urged by De 
Wette, and substantially repeated by 
Alford, against unbelief as the sin here 
referred to, on the ground that it is 
self-apparent that this sin could not 
have been charged upon them, if Jesus 
had not come and preached, is very 
weak, if not absolutely puerile. Our 
Lord often makes a self-evident truth 
the basis of an inference, which is the 
more convincing and irresistible from 
the acknowledged truth of the prem- 
ises. Besides this, we might argue 
against a reference to any particular 
sin or augmentation of guilt resulting 
from the mission and presence of Jesus, 
on the same principle ; for it is equally 
self-evident, that had he not come into 
the world and spoken to men, they 
would not have hated and rejected him, 
as that they would not have believed 
on him. Whatever the sin was, it is 
clear that it was occasioned by our 
Lord's advent and ministry, and would 
not have been chargeable upon the per- 
sons here spoken of, had he not thus 



come and spoken unto them. As un- 
belief in reference to Christ's mission 
was the great generic sin of the Jews, 
I cannot doubt that it is the one here 
referred to. The hatred which they 
manifested towards our Saviour, was a 
necessary out-growth of this sin, and is 
therefore included in it. This is the 
view entertained by the majority of ex- 
positors, and those Avho are most noted 
for their sound and evangelical exposi- 
tions of God's word. But now, &c. 
Contrasted with their comparative guilt- 
lessness had not Christ come and spoken 
with them, is their culpability in reject- 
ing him, when he had come and given 
such full proof of his divine mission and 
character. Now (as the matter stands) 
they have no cloak (i. c. pretext or ex- 
cuse) for their sin, i. e. concerning or 
in reference to their sin. Winer ren- 
ders the preposition on account of, in 
behalf of. Our translators have ren- 
dered it very correctly and idiomati- 
cally for their sin, the metaphor being 
taken from something thrown around a 
thing to hide it from view, or make it 
appear different from what it really is. 
The sin here referred to, is the same as 
the one spoken of in the preceding 
clause. They had no excuse whatever 
for their unbelief and hatred of him, 
for he had come with the most ample 
and convincing proofs of his having 
been sent of God. In rejecting him, 
against such evidence that he came 
from God, they had rejected God also, 
and proved beyond question, that their 
hatred and unbelief arose from the fact, 
that they had no acquaintance with 
God (v. 21), or desire to attain to a 
knowledge of His ways. Thus this 
verse illustrates and confirms what is 
declared in v. 21, that hatred to him 
and his followers results from the great 
fact that the world is ignorant of God, 
and therefore of His Son whom He had 
sent for the very purpose of revealing 
Him to men. The word rendered cloak, 
is literally an appearance, and hence that 
which is alleged to cover the real state of 
the case, an apparent cause as opposed 
to that which is true and real, a pretext, 
exctise, shuffle. The advent of Jesus 
had been so open and public, and the 



376 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



my Father also. 

24 If I had not done among 
them e the works which 



none 



dl Jo. 2:23. 



proof of his divine mission so abundant 
and irrefutable, that every extenuating 
excuse for their unbelief was taken 
away, and hence this sin rested upon 
them in all its appalling weight. 

23. The evidence of our Lord's di- 
vine mission, was declared in the pre- 
ceding verse to be so abundant and 
clear, that there was no pretext what- 
ever for the sin of those who rejected 
and hated him. What is here stated 
followed as a consequence, that who- 
ever hated the Son, possessed as he was 
of such incontestable marks of supreme 
divinity, hated the Father also. This 
verse is also closely connected in sense 
with vs. 20, 21. The persecuting spirit 
of the world, is there declared to result 
from ignorance of God. But although 
so profoundly ignorant of Him, they 
are chargeable with hatred of Him by 
their hatred of His Son, whom He had 
sent into the world on such a mission 
of love as the redemption of mankind. 

24. This verse is an expansion of v. 
22, the direct train of thought suffering 
a partial interruption, in v. 23, which 
was interposed to show that the igno- 
rance of the Father, which was charged 
upon them as a reason for their per- 
secution of Jesus and his followers, 
was not inconsistent with hatred of 
Him; since although they knew not 
God, such was the essential unity of 
the Father and Son, that their hatred 
of the latter, was a hatred of the for- 
mer also. In proof of this allegation, 
our Lord refers to the abundant evi- 
dence of his divine mission which was 
furnished by his works, which far trans- 
cended in number, magnitude, and be- 
neficence, the works done by any other 
accredited messenger of God. This ap- 
peal to his miracles in confirmation of 
his being sent from God, shows that we 
arc not to undervalue them in the evi- 
dence of the truth of Christianity. The 
words among them, are thought by Au- 



other man did, they had not had 
sin ; but now have they both 
seen and hated both me and my 
Father. 



eCh. 



& 7 : 31 : & 9 : 32. 



gustine and some others after him, to 
be equivalent to in them, that is, in 
their bodies, reference being had to 
the physical results of his healing be- 
neficence. But it is better with the 
mass of expositors, to give it the sense, 
while among them. Compare 12 : 35. 
The Syriac version has it, before their 
eyes. See also Acts 2 : 22, where among 
you, is literally, in the midst of you. 
The works here spoken of are miracles, 
including, however, as we see in v. 22, 
bis word and teachings, which bore 
such a heavenly impress, that they con- 
firmed the evidence of his divine mis- 
sion furnished by his stupendous mira- 
cles. Which none other man did ; lit- 
erally, ivhich no other one did. The ref- 
erence is to miracles wrought previous- 
ly on earth by the messengers and 
prophets of God, and not by false 
prophets, as some strangely suppose. 
These impostors, as I have shown in 
my Note on Matt. 7 : 22, never per- 
formed miracles voluntarily, as Avas 
done by the true servants of God, but 
only instrumentally and involuntarily, 
by a power which they could not resist. 
They had not had sin. . This is repeated 
from v. 22, the connection showing 
their inexcusable rejection of Jesus 
Christ, from the clear and abundant 
proof which his miracles furnished of 
his divine mission. In regard to the 
comparative value of the kind of evi- 
dence referred to here and in v. 22, it 
will suffice to remark, that miracles as 
appealing to the evidence of the senses, 
are first in order ; but unless wrought 
in confirmation of that which is true 
and consistent with the character and 
revealed will of God, are of no value 
whatever. Miracles must be connected 
with a holy life and true words, to have 
any power and significancy. Indeed, 
as above remarked, they will never 
have the stamp of true and genuine 
miracles, unless the life and teachings 



a. r. 



CHAPTER XT. 



377 



25 But this comeiJi to pass. ' that is written in their law, J 'Tliey 
that the word might be fulfilled hated me without a cause. 

/Ps. 35:19; & 69:4 



o( those who perform them, are in har- 
mony with the divine will. The evi- 
dence of his divine mission beii a 
fully established by his miracles, as well 
as woi - _- . their guilt in rejecting 
him was greatly enhanced thereby, and 
hence they had not hod sin, is here re- 
peated with an increased and emphatic 

ication. This is stiD further shown 
by the next clause, in which they are 

. :l with having both seen and 
hated him and the Father. This charge 
of wilful and obstinate rejection of God 
and his son Jesus Christ, occupies a 
position in the verse corresponding to 
the words but now they have no cloak 
. in v. 22. It will be seen, 
therefore, that the sin of unbelief is 
here represented in a more heinous 
and aggravated form, than in v. 22, 
because his miracles not only fur- 
nished evidence in common with his 
words (v. 22), that he was the Mes- 
siah, but that the Father himself was 
present in him. Hence seeing him, they 

he Father; and hating him, they 
hated the Father also. Thus this verse 

oly expands and strengthens the 
idea contained in v. 22, but also proves 
and confirms what had been in a man- 
ner parenthetically expressed in v. 23. 
The general sentiment is that the Fa- 
ther was so evidently apparent in the 
works and words of his Son, that who- 
ever hated the Son must of necessity 
hate the Father also. There is a close 
and logical connection between these 
verses, which can scarcely be appre- 
hended, unless the great idea of our 
Lord's supreme divinity is clearly rec- 
ognized, as underlying the whole pas- 
sage. It would be a vain display of 
unmeaning language, to predicate this 
unity of lore and hatred of persons 
other than those who are coequal and 
- i.tially one. 

25. The hatred evinced towards the 
Father and Son, was not the result of 
mere accident or chance, but had been 
foreseen and predicted in God's word. 
This would tend to comfort the disci- I 



pies and strengthen their faith. Their 
Master was not brought into circum- 
stances of peril, apart from the counsel 
and purpose of God. In giving his Son 
to die for the world, He had foreseen 
and provided for just such a state of 
opposition and rebellion to his rightful 
supremacy, as was now manifesting it- 
self in the nation. But although Jesus 
was thus delivered up by the determi- 
counsel and foreknowledge of 
God (Acts 2 : 23), yet such was the free 
agency of his murderers, that it was 
with wicked hands that he was crucified 
and slain. But this cometh to pass. The 
ellipsis as supplied in our common ver- 
sion, gives the true sense. The con- 
junction that, has here, as in Matt. 1 : 
22, the eventual sense ; the idea being 
that in this extreme hatred entertained 
Is Jesus by the Jews, there was a 
fulfilment of the words written in their 
law. The citation is from Ps. 09 : 4, 
where David in the Messianic character 
and spirit of that psalm, says of his en- 
emies, "They that hate me without 
cause, are more than the hairs of mine 
head." The emphasis is on the words 
without a cause, reference being had 
not only to the blameless life of Jesus, 
but to the clear and abundant evidence 
furnished by his words and works, that 
he was not only a divinely sent messen- 
ger of God, but that in Him dwelt the 
fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2 : 
9). In this sense the words correspond 
to have no cloak for their sin, in v. 22. 
The reference to the Book of the Psalms 
by the word laic, is designed to indicate 
the reverence and regard which the 
Jews pretended to pay to all portions 
of the Old Testament, making it their 
professed rule and law of all action and 
belief. There is no irony, as some sup- 
pose, in their laic, but as Afford re- 
marks, it is "their law as condemning 
them, though their boast and pride." 
Hated me in the type furnished bv the 
cruel and unjust hatred manifested to- 
wards David by his enemies. 

26. In contrast with this satanic ha- 



378 



JOHN. [A. D. 33. 



26 p But when the Comforter 
is come, whom I will send unto 
you from the Father, even the 

gjuu. 24:49; ch. 14:17, 26; & 16:7, 13; Ac. 
2:83. 

tred and malice entertained by the 
Jews towards Jesus, who had made 
such a demonstration of his Messianic 
character, is introduced again the peace- 
ful and heavenly mission of the Com- 
forter. The disciples in view of this in- 
tense and persecuting hatred, might be 
ready to exclaim in despair, that if Je- 
sus was obliged to succumb to his ene- 
mies and retire from the field, how 
could they in their comparative weak- 
ness, overcome this malignant hatred 
and opposition, and persuade men that 
Jesus was the true Messiah ? To this 
natural train of thought, so suited 
to the dejection which then weighed 
down their spirit, our Lord kindly 
replies, that the Comforter or Helper 
(see N. on 14: 16) would bear witness 
in and through them, by imparting 
force and unction to their words, and 
endowing them with miraculous gifts 
and powers. The train of thought har- 
monizes also with the preceding verses, 
in which Jesus claims that he had made 
such full and convincing proof of his di- 
vine mission, that his enemies had no 
pretext whatever for the hatred of him 
which they manifested. But even after 
his death, the demonstration of his 
Messiahship would still be made by the 
Comforter who should come in his 
name and as his representative. The 
Messianic prophecy, that he should be 
hated without a cause, w r ould receive 
new force and pertinency, when the 
Spirit should come and convince the 
world " of sin and of righteousness and 
of judgment" (see 16 : 8). Thus vs. 26, 
27, serve not only to comfort the disci- 
ples, and confirm their faith, but also to 
strengthen and illustrate the absolute 
inexcusableness of those, who in de- 
fiance of the proof which he himself 
gave of his Messiahship, and of the 
additional testimony of the Spirit, and 
of his disciples who had been eye-wit- 
nesses of his great works, should per- 
sist in their unbelief and hatred of him. I 



Spirit of truth, which proceedeth 
from the Father, h he shall testify 
of me : 

h 1 Jo. 5 : G. 



Is come refers back to the promise 
made in 16 : 8. In proof of the generic 
signification of the word Paraclete, 
translated in our version Comforter, 
it will be seen that here He is referred to 
as a Spirit of Witness. In 16 : 8, His 
office is one of reproof and conviction ; 
in 16 : 13, He is to act as the guide and 
assistant of Christ's followers. This 
shows that the word Paraclete, embraces 
more than what is denoted by Com- 
forter, in the acceptation of that term 
current in our day. As has been re- 
marked (jNT. on 14 : 16) the word Com- 
forter, is one of such precious import, 
and so embedded in our tenderest as- 
sociations by our use of it in the com- 
mon version, that I would not have it 
changed for any other, even though one 
might be selected of more fulness of 
signification. But let the reader be care- 
ful not to confine the office of the Holy 
Spirit, to that of merely imparting com- 
fort and consolation in the hour of trial 
and adversity. This is an important 
function of His office, but constitutes but 
a small portion of His work as the Help- 
er and Guardian of the saints on earth. 

Whom I will send, &c. In 14:16, the 
Comforter is said to be the gift of the 
Father, in answer to the prayer of Je- 
sus ; in 14 : 26, He is to be sent by the 
Father, in the name of Jesus. Here 
our Lord is himself said to send the 
Comforter, the Spirit of truth, from 
the Father. There is no contradic- 
tion in these varied forms of expres- 
sion. The concurrent idea of all is, 
that the Spirit proceeds from the Fa- 
ther, in answer to the prayer or ex- 
pressed will (see N. on 14 : 16) of Je- 
sus. In order to give prominence to 
this latter idea, that the gift of the 
Spirit is the purchase of Christ, 
and included therefore in the cove- 
nanted reward which he was to re- 
ceive from the Father for his obedience 
unto death, our Lord is himself said to 
send the Spirit from the Father. It 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XV. 



379 



27 And l ye also shall bear wit- 

iLu. 24 : 43 ; Ac. 1 : 8, 21, 22 ; & 2 : 32 ; & 3 : 

15;&4:20,33; &5:82; & 10:39; & 13:31; 

IPe. 5: 1;2 Pe. 1:16. 



hardly need be repeated, that the foun- 
dation of all this apparent interchange 
of the acts of the Father and the Sou, 
is their absolute and essential union 
and equality, so that what is predicated 
of the one, may, without any violence 
of language, be predicated of the other. 
The Spirit of truth. See N. on 14 : 
16. Which proceedeth from the Father. 
" The technical word ' procession,' denot- 
ing the mode of the Holy Spirit's exist- 
ence, is taken from this passage, which, 
however, does not explain nor prove the 
doctrine of the church on this subject ; 
the procession here spoken of being that 
of mission, not of nature." Webster and 
Wilkinson. SoAlford after Bengel, re- 
marks, that " this passage cannot be al- 
leged either one way or the other, in the 
controversy with the Greek church on 
the procession of the Holy Spirit." He is 
disposed, therefore, with Luthardt to 
take the whole of these expressions con- 
nected with the sending of the Spirit, as 
spoken economically. It is the remark 
of Stier, that the essential union and 
equality of the Divine Three, seems to 
be especially guarded on all sides by 
these words of Jesus. He himself sends 
the Spirit, but he gives the Father his 
right by the first from the Father ; " but 
also in order to obviate all appearance of 
an exclusive subordination of the Spirit 
under Himself the Son, and to indicate 
the Spirit as of like divine nature with 
the Son who came forth from the Fa- 
ther (16 : 28), he expressly utters the 
icJtich proceedeth from the Father, 
which advances from the economical 
to the essential relation." My own 
views of the essential and official re- 
lations of the Persons of the Godhead, 
may be seen in my Note on Matt. 28 : 
19. 

The preposition in from the Father, 
is not the one in Greek which expresses a 
removal from the interior of a thing, nor 
that which denotes an external removal 
or separation, but one which refers to 
a coming from the side of and implies 



ness, because h ye have been with 
me from the beginning. 

k Lu. 1 : 2 ; 1 Jo. 1 : 1, 2. 

that the original abode of the Spirit 
was with God. This passage therefore 
furnishes no proof that the Holy 
Spirit proceeds out of the Father, 
or that there is the least subordina- 
tion in his essential being, to the other 
Persons of the divine Trinity. The 
verb proceedeth, refers to voluntary and 
spontaneous movement, and thus shows 
that while in the economy of redemp- 
tion the Spirit is spoken of as being 
sent by the Father and Son, yet His 
coming into the world as the great 
Regenerator and Sanctifier, is an act 
wholly voluntary on His part, and to 
which He is not in the least coerced. 
He shall testify, &c. The pronoun both 
here, and in the relative clause whom I 
will send, places beyond all question the 
personality of the Holy Spirit. Indeed in 
this one verse, the whole doctrine of the 
Triune God is so clearly found, that we 
should hardly need to seek further proof 
of it in other portions of the Gospel. The 
testimony of the Spirit is not exactly 
that of the disciples themselves referred 
to in v. 27, although it is expressed in 
and through them. It refers to the 
illumination of their mind in regard to 
the Old Testament types, ordinances, 
and prophecies, such as was vouchsafed 
to the author of the Epistle to the He- 
brews, in regard to the Mosaic ritual 
and tabernacle service, as prefigurative 
of the spiritual sanctuary into which 
Christ, our great High Priest, has 
entered for our redemption and sanctifi- 
cation. Miraculous gifts and powers, the 
speaking with tongues, interpretation 
of tongues, prophesyings, discerning 
of spirits, marvellous endowments of 
wisdom and knowledge (1 Cor. 12 : 1- 
10), were all the gift of the Spirit, 
for the furtherance of the work of 
spreading the gospel in the early days 
of the church. This was illustrated 
especially by the descent of the Holy 
Spirit on the day of Pentecost, giving 
such power and efficacy of utterance 
to the apostles, and such living energy 



380 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



to the word, that three thousand persons 
were converted to Christ in one day. 

27. Ye also, in concurrence with and 
subordination to this higher testifying 
agency of the Spirit. Shall beat' witness. 
The present tense with future significa- 
tion is employed in the original, the 
idea being rendered prominent, that 
they were already possessed of that 
knowledge of him, which would qualify 
them to be his witnesses before men. 
Because ye have been with me; literally, 
are with vie, the present including in it 
the past tense, inasmuch as the whole 
duration of their continuance with Je- 
sus is referred to ; or the act of con- 
tinuance which began in time past, 
is regarded as reaching onward to the 
present time. The sense is therefore 
pregnant: ye were with me from the 
beginning even up to the present 
moment. (See N. on 8 : 58.) The 
reason here given shows in what con- 
sisted the difference of their own tes- 
timony, and that which was peculiarly 
the work of the Spirit. They were to 
testify of that in regard to which they 
had been eye-witnesses (see Luke 1:2; 
Acts 1 : 21). Their testimony was there- 
fore to be a personal one. It was not 
sufficient for the witness which they 
were to bear in regard to his life and 
teachings, that their minds were super- 
naturally endowed with heavenly light 
and wisdom, and that they were fur- 
nished with miraculous gifts and graces ; 
but they were to give their own person- 
al testimony to the truth of what they 
affirmed in regard to the life, miracles, 
and teachings of Jesus. The desirable- 
ness and even necessity of this in pro- 
claiming the gospel to an unbelieving 
world, must be obvious to all. Their 
words would have found small credence 
in Jerusalem, Judea, Asia Minor, Greece, 
Bo me, Egypt, Ethiopia, and other re- 
gions whither they carried the gospel, 
had they not been able to testify to its 
truth from their own personal knowl- 
edge. With straightforward plainness 
and simplicity they narrated the wonder- 
ful history of Jesus of Nazareth, and in 
proof of their veracity appealed to 
the miraculous gifts with which they 
had been endowed by the Holy Spirit. 



These gifts therefore served to con- 
firm the declarations which they made 
in regard to Jesus Christ ; but by no 
means superseded the necessity of their 
rehearsing in full and orderly detail, 
that of which they had been eye-wit- 
nesses while with our Saviour/ This 
distinctive use of the miraculous gifts 
of the Spirit should never be lost sight 
of, since it enables one to apprehend 
the meaning of the twofold testimony 
in the passage, " we are witnesses and 
so is the Holy Ghost" (Acts 5 : 39), and 
other scriptures of like import. Web- 
ster and Wilkinson include also the act- 
ing of the Spirit upon others besides 
themselves (see Acts 16 : 14), so that 
their testimony was favorably received. 
But I would refer that to a different 
office work of the Spirit. 

CHABTEB XVI. 

1-33. Persecution foretold. Fur- 
ther Promise of the Spirit. Prater 
in the name of Christ. Jerusalem. 
Evening introducing the sixth day of the 
Week. Alford finds in this chapter the 
i '- promise of the Comforter expanded in 
all its fulness, vs. 1-15 containing the 
conditions of his coming and office ; vs. 
16-24, the withdrawal of Jesus and its 
immediate mournful, but ultimate (and 
those soon to begin) joyful consequen- 
ces to his disciples ; vs. 25-32, their 
present real weakness and imperfection, 
though fancied strength ; their future 
high blessedness and share in his triumph 
though in tribulation in the world." 
Other expositors subdivide the chapter 
somewhat differently, and indeed the 
thoughts are so interlaced, and bound 
together, and suffer such frequent repe- 
tition in the way of expansion, explana- 
tion, and emphasis, that it is quite difficult 
to divide the chapter into distinct and in- 
dependent portions. The simple train of 
thought seems to be this : tiibulation 
and consequent sorrow (1-6), against 
which the disciples are comforted by 
the promise of the Holy Ghost (7-15) ; 
and which, although at first great and ex- 
cessive in consequence of his departure, 
were to be turned into joy (16-22) ; a re- 
newed assurance of the efficacy of prayer 
offered in his name (23, 24), a promise of 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XYI. 



381 



CHAPTER XYI. 

THESE things have I spoken 
unto you, that ye a should not 
be offended. 

2 * They shall put you out of 
aMt.ll:6;&24:10; &26:31. 

an enlargement of their spiritual knowl- 
edge (25-28) ; a prediction of their 
temporary desertion of him in the hour 
of his sulfering (29) ; and a renewal of 
the promise of peace, although in a 
world of tribulation (33). 

1. These things are referred by Stier 
and Alford, to the warnings in 15 : 18- 
21, but also of the promise of the testi- 
fying Spirit (vs. 26, 27). "Webster and 
Wilkinson would also include the spe- 
cial predictions about to follow. This 
is the true view. This verse, like 14 : 
25; 15 : 11, constitutes one of the 
pauses in his discourse, and is anticipa- 
tory of what he might be supposed to 
say at its final close. The pronoun these, 
while it refers in strict grammatical 
usage to what has preceded, yet con- 
nected as here with words proleptically 
used, may be regarded as virtually tak- 
ing in the whole discourse, or at least 
so much of it, as is relevant to the fol- 
lowing clause, that ye should not be of- 
fended (see N. on 15 : 11). This result 
shows that the things referred to, were 
those which had reference mainly to 
their trials and pei-secutions, and the 
comfort and aid which they should ex- 
perience from the promised Comforter, 
and his own spiritual presence and 
power. That ye should not be offended 
(see Ns. on Matt. 13 : 41 ; 17 : 27), 
i. e. in order that you may not meet 
with unexpected trials and hinderances, 
and thus become discouraged if not dis- 
gusted with the cause which you have 
espoused. Offended. " Hindered by 
stumbling-blocks such as are mentioned 
in the next verse." Crosby. 

2. They shall put you out, to,. There 
were three kinds of excommunication. 
The highest excision was punishment 
by death. This is referred to in the 
clause, whosoever Yilleth you, &c. See 
ST. on 9 : 23. Yea; literally, but, the 
spirit of deadly hostility asserted in 



the synagogues : yea, the time 
cometh, " that whosoever killeth 
you will think that he doeth God 
service. 

&Ch. 9:22, 84; &12:42. 
c Ac. 8 : 1 ; & 9 : 1 ; & 26 ; 9, iO, 11. 

this clause being placed in contrast 
with the comparatively mild form of 
excision by being put out of the syna- 
gogue. This clause therefore denotes 
a far greater temptation to apostatize 
from Christ, than mere excommunica- 
tion from the external privileges of 
worship. The time cometh. The verb 
has here a future sense, denoting time 
near and certain. See 4:35; 9:4; 
Luke 23 : 29. The word translated 
that, is literally, in order that, the ma- 
lignant and deadly animosity here spok- 
en of, being regarded as the object or 
purpose for which the hour was com- 
ing. Webster and Wilkinson happily 
express the shade of thought which is 
very marked and emphatic, by the time 
cometh for every one to think, &c. Who- 
soever is literally every one, the spirit of 
persecution here referred to being re- 
garded, not as developing itself alone 
in public assemblages, where masses of 
persons are congregated, but as tak- 
ing possession of individuals, and lead- 
ing them to regard it as their personal 
duty to persecute the disciples of Christ 
even to death. An illustration of this 
was Saul of Tarsus (Acts 26 : 9, com- 
pared with 23 : 1), and the forty men 
who bound themselves under a religious 
oath to kill Paul (Acts 23 : 12). The 
words of Jesus have been abundantly 
confirmed in the times of persecution, 
when the most bitter and deadly foes to 
the church, were the very persons w T ho 
thought that they Avere discharging a 
religious duty in ridding the earth of 
the disciples of Christ. The verb doeth, 
has the literal sense presenteth, proffer- 
eth, which leads some expositors to 
give as the sense, will think that he pre- 
senteth to God a sacrifice. Webster 
and Wilkinson think that the idea of 
sacrifice or oblation is conveyed in the 
phrase. Stier, Alford, and Tholuck, 
however, maintain the contrary view. 



382 



JOHN. [A. D. 33. 



3 And d these things will they 
do unto you, because they have 
not known the Father, nor me. 

4 But 'these things have I 
told you, that when the time shall 

d Oh. 15 : 21 ; Eo. 10 : 2 ; 1 Co. 2 : 8 ; 1 Ti. 1 : 13. 
eCh. 13: 19; & 14: 29. 

The expression is evidently intended to 
convey the idea of a high religious duty 
performed directly to God. The word 
service, literally refers to that which is 
rendered by a slave, and thus imparts 
emphasis to the act of obedience, sup- 
posed to be rendered to God in killing 
the followers of Christ. 

3. These things, &c. Reference is 
had to excommunication from the syn- 
agogue, and to the murderous spirit 
with which the disciples of Jesus were 
persecuted. Because they have not 
known, &c. Their blindness and self- 
deception were by no means guiltless, 
since they acted thus through ignorance 
of the true God (15 : 21), which was 
shown to be wilful by their rejection of 
Jesus, whose works bore ample testi- 
mony that he was sent of God, and that 
whoever hated him hated the Father 
also (15 : 23, 24). 

4. Our Lord here discloses his object, 
in thus forewarning them of the perse- 
cutions which they were to undergo for 
his name's sake. The adversative but, 
does not here denote opposition or con- 
trast, but the abrupt termination of the 
preceding thought, as though he had 
said : ' I could go on to specify many 
things connected with the persecutions 
which you will be called to pass through 
in fulfilling your mission, but these things 
which I have said, will suffice to put 
you on your guard against defection or 
apostasy from the persecutions which 
may arise and of which I have fore- 
warned you.' When the time (of perse- 
cution) shall come or may come, the in- 
definite or contingent future being de- 
noted by the Greek subjunctive, after 
the adverb here rendered tvhen, but 
better, whenever'. Ye may remember, 
&c. The remembrance that they had 
been forewarned by their Lord, would 
give them strength and firmness to en- I 



come, ye may remember that I 
told you of them. And f these 
things I said not unto you at the 
beginning, because I was with 
you. 

/See Mt. 9 : 15. 



dure persecution, from the evidence 
thereby furnished, that Christ was sent 
of God, and knew well beforehand all 
that his followers would be called to 
endure for his sake. These things I 
said not, &c. If reference is had solely 
to the persecutions which they were 
afterward to undergo, did not our Lord, 
on previous occasions, use quite as 
plain language in announcing these 
trials as here"? See Matt. 10 : 17-22 ; 
24 : 9 ; Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12, where 
they are told that they shall be brought 
before governors and kings, and shall 
be hated of all men for his name's sake. 
How then is this previous fulness of 
disclosure to be reconciled with what is 
here recorded, that he had not said 
these things unto them from the begin- 
ning ? There have been various ways 
of solving this difficulty. Some expos- 
itors suppose these forewarnings against 
persecution were introduced into the 
Synoptic Gospels, by way of anticipa- 
tion of what was uttered in this last dis- 
course recorded by John. But this is 
too rude an assault upon the integrity 
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as faith- 
ful historians, to be received as the 
true mode of reconciling the apparent 
disagreement between John's statement 
and theirs. Others after Augustine, 
Avould refer these things to the promise 
and office-work of the Comforter, which 
truths were now divulged for the first 
time. But the reference is too direct 
to the immediate antecedent these 
things, in the preceding clause, and to 
the same phrase in v. 3, to admit of a 
reference to the promise of the Para- 
clete in 14:16, 26; 15:26. That the 
reference in these things, may be so 
extended as to embrace what was pre- 
viously said in regard to the promised 
Spirit, and what was about to be said 
still further of Him (vs. 7-15), there 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVI. 



383 



5 But now g I go my way to 
him that sent me ; and none of 

g Ver. 10, 16 ; cb. 7 : S3 ; &, 13 : 3 ; & 14: 28. 



can be no doubt. But the special and 
primary reference is most unquestion- 
ably to the trials and persecutions, which 
it had just before been predicted that 
they should undergo. The only other 
mode of reconciling John's statement 
with the facts as they occur in the 
Synoptic Gospels, is the one adopted 
after Chrysostom by most of the mod- 
ern expositors, namely, that our Lord 
had not so fully and plainly declared 
from the beginning their future trials 
and persecutions, as he did on this pres- 
ent occasion. So Bengel : " He had 
spoken of the hatred of the world, but 
less openly and more sparingly." This 
which I have no doubt is fundamentally 
the true exposition, needs, however, 
some qualification. If reference be 
had simply and solely to the persecu- 
tions which the disciples were to expe- 
rience, is not the language in which they 
are foretold in Matthew and Luke espe- 
cially, almost if not equally as full and 
explicit, as that which is here employed 
in John ? But to make good the words 
here recorded, the disclosure of these 
persecutions and trials in the other gos- 
pels, should have been so dim and in- 
distinct, that compared with the full 
and explicit language in John, it was 
as though no revelation of the kind 
had ever been previously made. I can- 
not doubt, therefore, that while the 
reference is primarily to the persecu- 
tions here foretold, the other revela- 
tions and promises connected with the 
gift of the Spirit are also referred to, 
as furnishing the great source of strength 
and comfort in the approaching times 
of fiery trial and persecution. So Al- 
ford in reply to the question, to what 
these things most naturally refer, re- 
marks, "to that full and complete ac- 
count of the world's motives and their 
own office, and their comfort under it, 
which he has been giving them. This 
he had never before done so plainly, 
though occasional mention has been 
made even of the help of the Spirit 
under such trials (Matt. 10:19, 20)." 



you asketh me, Whither goest 
thou? 



There can be no doubt that the disci- 
ples heard all which our Lord spoke on 
this solemn occasion, and especially 
that part pertaining to the persecutions 
and afflictions which they were to en- 
dure for their Master's sake, with a dif- 
ferent ear, than when he predicted these 
things in the earlier portion of his min- 
istry. But this of itself would not war- 
rant the language / said not unto you, 
unless there were some things here re- 
vealed to tbem, which they had never 
known before. 

5. The abruptness with which our Lord 
breaks off from any further disclosure 
of the trials and persecutions which 
awaited them, seems to indicate that he 
would turn their thoughts into a more 
cheerful channel. In order however to 
introduce the subject which he des- 
cants upon in vs. 7-15, he repeats the 
assertion that he is soon to leave them, 
and gently rebukes their want of cu- 
riosity, as to the place whither he was 
about to go. But is not the strong ad- 
versative particle, which in the Greek is 
employed to denote opposition or con- 
trast, but is the one used as a general 
connective with a slight adversative 
sense. The connection is with the 
preceding words, because 1 mas with you. 
Now he is to leave them, and hence this 
clause is introduced by a connective 
which denotes a slight shade of opposi- 
tion. To him that sent me, i. e. to the Fa- 
ther. Koneof 'you asketh me, &c. This 
cannot be taken as a literal denial that a 
question of this sort had been proposed 
to him, for Peter (13 :3G), and Thomas 
(14 : 5), had both on this very occasion 
proposed the inquiry, as to the place 
whither he was about to go. It is ra- 
ther to be taken in the sense, that the 
announcement of this fact had not made 
its due impression on their mind, and 
that their thoughts were too wholly 
fixed upon the future trials which 
awaited them. It may be presumed 
that after the solemn and emphatic 
utterance of the words, but noio I go my 
way to him that sent me 7 there was a 



384 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 3J 



6 But because I have said these 
things unto you, A sorrow hath 
filled your heart. 

7 Nevertheless I tell you the 
truth ; It is expedient for you 

h Ver. 22 ; ch. 14 : 1. 

pause ; and as his annunciation of his 
immediate departure called forth no 
inquiry or response, he gently arouses 
their curiosity, and directs them to the 
contemplation of this, as an antidote to 
the disheartening influence which the 
disclosure of their future trials had 
exerted upon their mind. That they 
were restrained by their deep sorrow of 
heart from making any inquiries of him, 
is directly affirmed in v. 6, and we can- 
not doubt that the train of remark 
which follows, was designed to counter- 
act the sadness to which his words in 
vs. 1-4 had given rise. 

6. The silence which indicated their 
sorrow of heart, is here placed in di- 
rect contrast with that lively and active 
state of mind, which would, lead them 
by pertinent and timely inquiries to 
the full understanding of all which 
he said. Hence the verse begins with 
the particle but, which in the original 
has the strong adversative sense. These 
things have special reference here to 
the persecutions and afflictions which 
he had foretold. Sorrow hath filled, &c. 
All other things were comparatively lost 
sight of, in the sad picture of persecu- 
tion and trial, which had now taken 
the place of their hopes and prospects 
of temporal aggrandizement under the 
Messianic reign. Their feelings on this 
occasion are fully disclosed, in that 
frank confession made by the disciple, 
on the walk to Emmaus, ' we trusted 
that it had been he which should have 
redeemed Israel, but now he speaks of 
departing from this world, and leaving 
to us his disciples, a life of hardship, 
suffering, and death.' It was needful 
then that our Lord should comfort and 
encourage them, by disclosing more 
fully the office work of the Comforter, 
and pointing them to the rich rewards 
which should crown a life of activity 
and fidelity in his service. Sorrow ; 



that I go away : for if I go not 
away, ''the Comforter will not 
come unto you ; hut * if I depart, 
I will send him unto you. 

*Ch. 7:39; & 14: 16, 26; & 15: 26. 
h Ac. 2 : 33 ; Ep. 4 : 8. 

literally, pain, distress hath filled, i. e. 
hath taken full possession of. The 
words are all of pregnant and emphatic 
sense. Stier's remarks may be well quo- 
ted here : " These are the same disciples 
who afterward, when their risen Lord 
had ascended to heaven, without any 
pang at parting with him returned with 
great joy to Jerusalem (Luke 24 : 52)." 
7. Our Lord now shows them not 
only the reasonableness, but the kind- 
ness evinced towards them in thus 
leaving them for a season. Nevertheless ; 
literally, hut, the theme now to be in- 
troduced being designedly contrasted 
with that of the preceding context. J tell 
you the truth. This has much the same 
confirmatory force as his verily, verily, 
I say unto you. The pronoun /, in the 
original is emphatic, I myself. It is ex- 
pedient ; literally, it is of use, conducive 
to your interest. The words that I go 
away, refer to the withdrawal of his per- 
sonal presence, without which the pres- 
ence of the promised Spirit could not 
be enjoyed. This is given as the rea- 
son in the following clause, for if I go 
not away, &c. The idea is that bless- 
ings of greater richness and abundance 
were to accompany the dispensation 
of the Spirit, than in the economy of 
God's grace would attend the contin- 
uance of his personal presence. Hence 
it was to be regarded as a blessing 
to them, that he was to leave them, 
and be succeeded by one whose special 
office-work was to fill the soul with 
peace and joy. Tlie Comforter will not 
come. He was to be Christ's representa- 
tive on earth, and hence it would have 
been premature for him to have been 
sent prior to our Lord's departure. As 
this gift of the Spirit was included in 
the blessings purchased by his death, 
it could not be bestowed in all its rich- 
ness and fulness, until Christ had fin- 
ished the work of expiation for the sin ' 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XTI. 



185 



8 And when lie is corne, he i of righteousness, and of judg- 
will reprove the world of sin, and ment . 



of the world, by his death on the cross. 
All the divine manifestations of mercy 
and of grace, before the advent of Je- 
sus Christ, were those of the Spirit 
based on the prospective atonement 
to be made by God's eternal Son ; 
but His more full and peculiar office 
work in the conversion and sanctifica- 
tion of men, was not to be entered 
upon, until after Christ had actually 
performed the work for which he came 
into this world. Dr. Skinner (Theol. 
Fragments Xo. YIII.) well says : " It [i. 
e. the work of the Spirit] was performed 
in the world, as was every work of mer- 
cy, before the atonement was actually 
made : but as it was needful that the 
atonement should be made before the 
Spirit could come in the fulness of his 
peculiar power, so was it, by virtue of the 
atonement, anticipated, that He pre- 
viously exercised His distinctive office." 
See Rev. 13:8. If I depart. The verb 
here employed signifies not simply de- 
parture, like the one in the preceding 
clause, but removal to another place. 
Hence it would be preferable to trans- 
late the first, depart, and the second, 
go ; inasmuch as the one denotes mere 
absence, but the other, a going to the 
Father, whence he was to send forth the 
Spirit. I will send him. See X. on 15 : 26. 
Alford remarks on this necessity that 
Christ should leave the world before the 
Comforter could be sent : " It is a con- 
vincing proof, if one more were needed, 
that the gift of the Spirit at and since 
the day of Pentecost, was and is some- 
thing totally distinct from any thing be- 
fore that time : a new and loftier dis- 
pensation." We may also add, that 
this Spirit of promise is something dis- 
tinct from that spiritual life which 
abides in the truth, and which had been 
enjoyed by the Old Testament saints 
from the earliest history of man (see 
Gen. 6 : 3). In a new and peculiar sense, 
as a more distinct personality, the Holy 
Spirit was to come down and dwell in the 
hearts of men ; and this seems to be in- 
dicated beyond all question by the lan- 
Vol, III.— 17 



guage of this verse, as well as of others 
where his coming is referred to. 

8. When he is come and has entered 
upon his office-work. He will reprove. 
The idea of reproof, although embraced 
in that of the verb here made use of, falls 
far short of reaching the full meaning 
of the word. Will convince would be 
better, yet in this signification we must 
also include that of subsequent reproof 
and condemnation. The word is an 
advance on shall testify, in 15 : 26, de- 
noting the result of this overpowering 
testimony in behalf of Christ, in the 
conviction of sin, and condemnation of 
all who do not repent and turn to God 
through Jesus Christ. The world here 
spoken of as thus convinced, reproved, 
and condemned of the Spirit, primarily 
refers to the Jews, who in the times of 
this outpouring of the Spirit, would be 
convinced of their deep and aggravated 
sin in rejecting Jesus Christ. This was 
doubtless true of thousands, not only 
those who believed on the day of Pen- 
tecost, and in the times of refreshing 
which followed that great work of 
the Spirit, but those also, who, while 
convinced by the signs and wonders 
which accompanied the preaching of 
the apostles, that Jesus of Nazareth 
was a man sent of God, remained yet 
in a state of hardened unbelief, and 
brought upon themselves the condem- 
nation here implied in the verb will 
convince. But while this is primat-ily 
spoken of the Jews, it is in the highest 
degree true of all who have heard the 
name of Christ. The office of the 
Spirit is to convince them of sin in re- 
fusing to believe in an offered Redeem- 
er, and to reprove and condemn them 
for this state of apathy and unbelief. 
But how was this work of the Spirit to 
be a source of joy and comfort to the dis- 
ciples? They had been informed by Je^ 
sus, that they were to bear witness of 
him among men, and that hatred, per- 
secution, and death, were to attend their 
ministration of his word. This was a 
sad and gloomy picture. How could a 



386 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



few weak and obscure men combat 
and overcome prejudices so deeply 
rooted, as those which they witnessed 
in the unbelief of the Jews, and which 
would yield to no evidence, however 
clear and conclusive, of the divine mis- 
sion of Jesus ? The future was to them 
dark and cheerless, and they were ready 
to sink down in hopeless dejection and 
dismay. But our Lord comes to their 
aid in this trying hour. He promises them 
an Almighty Helper, who should give 
their testimony such power and energy, 
that it would reach the conscience even 
of their enemies — here referred to in 
the phrase, the world — and convince it of 
sin in rejecting Jesus Christ whom they 
were preaching. With such an assist- 
ant, such a Helper and Comforter, how 
could they be otherwise than courage- 
ous and joyful? There was no way in 
which he could more directly admin- 
ister comfort and peace to their trou- 
bled souls, than by thus revealing to 
them the operations of the Spirit, as de- 
tailed in this verse. 

Of sin. What the special sin is, to 
which reference is here made, is disclos- 
ed in v. 9. It is unbelief in Jesus. This 
has been and will continue to be, the 
great sin wherever the gospel of Christ 
is preached. It is the natural outgrowth 
and expression of the unregenerate 
heart, when first confronted with the 
claims of Jesus upon its love and belief. 
It is the office of the Spirit to convince 
men of this sin. Some when thus con- 
victed, are brought in penitence, sub- 
mission, and faith to Christ. Others 
with fatal perverseness refuse submis- 
sion to Him, and thus remain under the 
condemning sentence of God's law, en- 
hanced by the conviction of guilt, thus 
wrought in them by the Spirit, and 
which they have madly and persistently 
resisted. 

Of righteousness. Whose righteous- 
ness ? Surely not that of the world ; 
for the convincing work of the Spirit 
reveals there nought save sin and un- 
belief. In the light of v. 10, which 
contains the explanation of this word, 
there can be but one answer, the right- 
eousness of Jesus Christ. At the time 
these words were uttered, he was re- 



garded by the Jewish nation, an impos- 
tor, a false Christ. But under the dis- 
pensation of the Spirit, his divine char- 
acter and mission would be so clearly 
manifested and vindicated, that the world 
itself would be convinced that he was 
God's Son, the true Messiah and Re- 
deemer of men. This is the counterpart 
of the convincing work of the Spirit in 
exposing the sin of unbelief. Not only 
was the enormity and inexcusableness 
of that sin to be so brought home to 
the conscience, that the flimsy and 
fallacious arguments which unbelief 
employed to maintain its ascendency 
over the heart, Avould be clearly shown 
to be false and worthless ; but the integ- 
rity and heavenly mission of Jesus 
Christ, would also be made to appear 
in all its glorious prominence, and com- 
mand the assent of the intellect of men, 
even when the obedience and love of the 
heart was withheld through impenitence 
and spiritual unbelief. We are assured 
in other portions of God's word, that 
this vindication of the name of Jesus 
from the aspersions of unbelief, will go 
on with increased power and success, 
until at the mention of that name, 
" every knee shall bow and every 
tongue confess to God." See Isa. 45 : 
23 ; Rom. 14 : 11 ; Phil. 2:11. This 
glorious consummation is to be the 
great work of the Spirit, not, however, 
apart from the cooperative agency of 
the followers of Jesus, but in connec- 
tion with their efforts and prayers, for 
the accomplishment of this predicted 
era of truth and righteousness. Stier 
and Alford would limit this word right- 
eousness by the icorld; not that the 
world's righteousness was their own, 
but that of the accepted man Christ 
Jesus, w T hich is (or in the case of those 
condemned might have been) theirs, 
and manifested in their hearts to be 
their only righteousness, that which 
they had before being demonstrated 
to be worthless and filthy rags. 

Of judgment. Here is disclosed the 
work of the Spirit in the final over- 
throw, subjection, and judgment of all 
God's enemies, with the devil to whom 
they have paid their allegiance as the 
prince of this world (v. 11). All judg- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVI. 



887 



9 l Of sin, because they believe 
not on me ; 

10 ■ Of righteousness, n be- 



l Ac. 2 : 22—37. 
ii Ch. 3 : 14 ; & 5 : 



m Ac. 2:32. 
o Ac. 36: 18. 



merit is committed unto the Son, and yet 
the grounds of acquittal or condemna- 
tion will be furnished in the lives 
of men. They who are so convinced 
of their sin of unbelief, of the per- 
fect righteousness of Jesus, and of 
a judgment to come, eternal and un- 
speakably momentous in its conse- 
quences, as to forsake their sins and 
turn to Him for salvation, will be 
acquitted at the tribunal of judgment. 
They, on the other hand, who are intel- 
lectually enlightened on all these points, 
and yet remain obdurate, impenitent, 
and unbelieving, will experience the 
realities of all those fearful forebodings 
and apprehensions excited in the soul 
by this convincing and reproving Spirit, 
but which proved ineffectual to awaken 
in them that sense of sin and ill desert, 
which would have brought them in sub- 
mission to the foot of the eross. 

9-11. These verses are appended to 
illustrate, explain, and confirm the great 
words, sin, righteousness, and judgment, 
of which it was declared in the preced- 
ing verse to be the office-work of the 
Spirit to convince the world. These 
words were of themselves too generic 
to admit of any special signification or 
application, unless further explanation 
had been given by our Lord. The 
word sin, might have been employed in 
its comprehensive sense, of the general 
condition of sin and guilt, into which the 
world has fallen ever since Adam's first 
act of rebellion against God. But our 
Lord here informs us, that it was the 
specific sin of unbelief, to which, in the 
preceding verse, reference was made. 
In like manner, righteousness is a word 
of such general signification, that unless 
it had been limited to the integrity and 
innocence of Jesus, as it is in v. 10, we 
should probably have failed to discern 
its true and special sense. The same also 
may be said of judgment. It has such 



cause I go to my Father, and ye 
see me no more ; 

1 1 ° Of judgment, because p the 
prince of this "svorld is judged. 

p Lu. 10 : IS ; ch. 12 : 31 ; Ep. 2:2; Col. 2 : 15 
He. 2 : 14 

breadth of signification, that it might be 
expressive of all the forms and modes 
of judgment, which indicate the dis- 
pleasure of God against the sins of the 
human race. But these words so generic 
and of such wide application, are fully 
, explained by our Lord in these following 
i verses. In regard to the word render- 
\ ed because, which occurs in each verse, 
there is some difference of opinion as to 
its precise use and significancy. That it 
has a causal signification all expositors 
; admit, and the translation because, in our 
common version, is undoubtedly cor- 
; rect. It thus connects the clauses with 
; which it stands with the preceding verb 
mill reprove, which is to be mentally 
supplied in each verse. But the word 
is not only causal but also explanato- 
I ry in each instance of the words sin, 
righteousness, judgment, as they respec- 
tively occur. In this use it might be 
translated, in that, concerning this, that, 
&c. The clauses, then, which it serves 
here to introduce, contain not only the 
| reason why the Spirit will convince the 
world of sin, righteousness, and judg- 
: ment, but also the limitation of these ge- 
i neric terms to the particular points here 
specified. These verses therefore may 
[ be regarded as a reply to the question, 
as to what these words here especially 
refer. In regard to the definition here 
: given to the sin of which it is the prov- 
', ince of the Spirit to convict the world, 
j there can be no doubt that unbelief 

■ is the root and essence of all other 

j sins, and that the culmination of unbelief 
; is the want of faith in Jesus Christ. 
' This, as Alford remarks, " is not a mere 
| want of historical faith, but unbelief in 
its very root — the want of a personal 
: and living recognition of Jesus as the 

■ Lord (1 Cor. 12 : 3), which wherever 
\ the Spirit has opened His commission 
i by the planting of the visible Church, is 

I the condemning sin of the world. Of 



388 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



12 I have yet many things to 

g Ma. 4: S3; 1 Co. 3:2; Ho. 5:12. 



this he shall convince those who are 
brought out of the world, and ultimately 
convict those who remain in it and die 
in their sins." 

The word righteousness, has been 
explained in note on v. 8, as the up- 
rightness of Jesus Christ, in contrast 
with the charge of imposition and blas- 
phemy made against him by his ene- 
mies. But how would his going to 
his Father prove him to be a per- 
sonally righteous man ? Evident- 
ly if the Father received him to 
his own bosom and favor, it would 
evince beyond all question that he was 
pleased with his earthly mission, and 
that He ratified all which he had done 
and taught while on earth. But the evi- 
dence that Jesus had ascended to his 
Father, rested solely upon the testimo- 
ny of the disciples, confirmed by the 
signs and wonders, which, through the 
gift of the Spirit, they were enabled 
to perform in verification of the truth 
of their statements. Hence the con- 
viction of mankind in regard to the 
righteousness of Christ, was the work 
of the promised Spirit, although not 
apart from or independent of the 
truth, as preached by Christ's disciples, 
and taught in his revealed word. 

But while primary reference is had 
to the personal righteousness of Christ, 
there can be no doubt that his justifying 
righteousness is also included ; and this 
could only be bestowed upon men, as 
a consequence of his death and subse- 
quent glorification at God's right hand. 
Christ could not justify the sinner, until 
he himself had finished his justifying 
work, and rendered full obedience to 
the law even unto death. So Luther : 
" we must know no other righteousness, 
with which we can stand before God — 
than this going of Christ to the Father, 
which is no other than that He hath 
taken our sin upon his own back, and 
for the sake of it hath suffered the death 
of the cross, and been buried, not remain- 
ing however under the power of death 
and the grave, but passing through them 
all in his resurrection and ascension." 



say unto you, q but ye cannot bear 
tli em now. 

But while his going to his Father both 
vindicates his own personal integrity, 
and provides a justifying righteousness 
for those that believe, yet in those who 
reject this salvation and trust to their 
own righteousness, this perfect right- 
eousness of Christ will serve only to 
awaken remorse, that it was rejected by 
them, when they might have secured 
its justifying power and stood acquitted 
thereby before the Judge at the last 
day. Prof. Crosby well expresses it : 
" the world's only possible righteous- 
ness is in the grasping of the unseen 
and ascended Christ, and they will be 
convinced of that by God's Spirit either 
to salvation or damnation." Ye see me 
no more. The disappearance of his visi- 
ble presence was the result of his de- 
parture from the world to his Father. 
This clause is therefore added to show 
the reality of his departure from the 
world, which was so near at hand. 
Henceforth his spiritual presence ac- 
cording to his promise (14 : 23), was 
that alone which they were to enjoy, 
and this was to be secured and real- 
ized only by faith in him. 

11. Of judgment. See N. on v. 8. 
Because the prince of this world is judged. 
The prince of this world is Satan (see 
N. on 14 : 30). His judgment and con- 
demnation includes that of all the pow- 
ers and agencies of evil, of which he is 
the instigator and abettor. The judg- 
ment which will finally overtake all 
God's enemies, is now in a process of 
development through the work of the 
Spirit. " This judgment will be pro- 
gressive like the kingdom of Christ, 
with which in every epoch it harmo- 
nizes." Webster and Wilkinson. 

12. I have yet many things, &c. The 
object of this remark is to show the 
necessity of the Spirit's mission, to com- 
municate to them those high spiritual 
truths, which in their present state they 
are incapable of fully understanding. 
The phrase many things, is explained 
by all truth in v. 13, and the plural 
may be used in reference to those com- 
munications of truth in a detached form, 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XVI. 



389 



13 Howbeit when he, r the 
Spirit of truth, is come, 3 he will 
guide you into all truth : for he 



r Ch. 14:17: &15:26. 
eCh. 14:26; 1 Jo. 2:20, ! 



which under the ministration of the 
Spirit will be wrought into one grand 
and comprehensive system of truth. 
The word yet, implies that he had 
already instructed them in many things 
pertaining to his kingdom, but that 
much remained to be said, and this 
would be revealed to them by the Spirit 
whom he would send from the Father. 
As Webster and "Wilkinson remark, 
some of these things he revealed to 
them after his resurrection. But the 
great facts of the gospel were not fully 
understood, until their minds were 
enlightened on the day of Pentecost. 
Even then there was a gradual unfold- 
ing of the more peculiar and distinctive 
truths of Christianity. It was some 
time after the day of Pentecost, before 
they were fully instructed of the Spirit, 
to go forth and proclaim the gospel 
in all its richness and fulness to the 
Gentiles. Indeed so restricted were 
their views in regard to the scope and 
sphere of the gospel message, that 
they confined their labors mostly 
to Jerusalem, until driven out of the 
city by persecution, they carried the 
gospel to other parts of the land. 
Stier well expresses what was left to 
the teachings of the Spirit, namely, 
" the abolition of the typical in the old 
covenant through its fulfilment in his 
sacrificial death and high priesthood ; 
the right position of the old law as 
it regards the new commandment of 
his new covenant ; the relation of yet 
outstanding prophecy to the future con- 
summation of his kingdom — in short, 
every thing generally which the Epistles 
bring in, and especially which the 
Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apoc- 
alypse in the great conclusion un- 
fold." Cannot bear it, is generally 
taken in the sense of, cannot receive or 
understand it. Their mind was not yet 
fully emancipated from the notion of a 
temporal Messiah ; and many things 
which they were to know depended 



shall not speak of himself; but 
whatsoever he shall hear, that 
shall he speak : and he will shew 
you things to come. 



upon the facts of his death, resurrec- 
tion, and ascension, all of which were 
in the future. There is an apparent 
discrepancy between the assertion here 
made, and what is said in 15 : 15, that 
he had made known to them all things 
that he had heard from the Father. 
Had he then exhausted his own knowl- 
edge of the things to be revealed, and 
was the Spirit more fully competent 
than he, to make up this deficiency 
of instruction ? Surely not. The as- 
sertion in 15 : 15, must therefore be 
taken in a comparative or relative 
sense; not that he had absolutely made 
known to them all which he had heard 
from the Father, but all which he had 
heard for the purpose of being revealed 
to them in the way and time here men- 
tioned. So Tholuck : " the things which 
they could not yet bear, Christ had 
not heard for them." Stier finds 
another shade of thought in the ex- 
pression cannot bear, which he thinks is 
a more gracious and stronger expres- 
sion than cannot receive. " The Lord 
considers the weakness of their op- 
pressed minds — their hearts being full 
of sorrow, and presupposing that they 
cannot yet fully understand his words, 
will therefore lay upon them no further 
heavy burden." But the want of spirit- 
ual power and discernment, rather 
than strength to bear up under the pres- 
sure of sorrow, and sustain the full bur- 
den of revealed truth, seems to be the 
truth clearly taught in the passage. 

13. He. The pronoun again brings 
out prominently the personality of the 
Spirit. Spirit of truth. See N. on 
14:17. Into all truth; literally, all 
the truth which I would now say unto 
you, if you could bear it, and if the 
proper time for its communication had 
come. There is no promise here of in- 
fallibility, or of any revelation of truth, 
over and above that which is embraced 
in what is alluded to in v. 12. "It 
contains a promise to them and to us, 



390 



JOHN". 



[A. D. 



14 He shall glorify me : for he 



that the Holy Spirit shall teach and 
lead us, not as children, under the 
tutors and governors of legal and im- 
perfect knowledge, but as sons (Gal. 
4 : 6), making known to us the whole 
truth of God." Alford. Bloomfield, 
however, contends for the rendering 
the whole truth, referring not only to 
things kept back by our Lord from cir- 
cumstances, but to things future, of 
which he had said nothing unto them. 
But whatever force we may give the 
article in the original, the reference is 
neither more nor less than to the whole 
system of Christian truth. He will 
guide; literally, will be a guide, will 
lead, or show one on his way. The 
word happily contrasts the perfect 
knowledge of Divine things which the 
Spirit possesses, with the ignorance of 
a finite and sin-darkened mind. For 
he shall not speak of himself. This 
clause illustrates and confirms the pre- 
ceding declaration, that the Spirit 
Avould impart to them a full knowledge 
of the truth. It also shows that, while 
our Lord was soon to leave his disci- 
ples, and could not, therefore, person- 
ally communicate to them the truths 
necessary to the discharge of their 
apostolical duties, he would speak to 
them by the Spirit, whose province was 
not to speak, as independent, self-con- 
stituted, and separate from God — a 
thing which the essential unity of the 
Persons of the Godhead absolutely for- 
bids, but which is here formally denied, 
in order to illustrate more fully their 
respective office work in human re- 
demption — but as a Divine Legate, 
making known the things wherein He 
has been instructed by the Father and 
Son who sent Him. As the Son was 
sent of the Father to communicate those 
things which he had heard from Him 
(15:15), so the Spirit Avas sent from 
the Father and Son (14: 16, 26 ; 15 : 
26), to make known the things which 
he had heard from them who sent him. 
It is hardly necessary to repeat what 
has been so often said, that essential 
subordination is not here intended, but 



shall receive of mine, and shall 
shew it unto you. 

one which is purely official, and grow- 
ing out of the relations which each 
Person in the Trinity sustained to the 
work of human redemption. The phrase 
of himself has here the same sig- 
nification as in 5 : 19, where it is said 
that the Son can do nothing of himself 
(see also 5 : 30 ; 8 : 28), that is, apart 
from the Father. This was forbidden 
by His essential unity with the Father, 
and more especially by the subordinate 
relation to the Father, which He as- 
sumed in the work of man's salvation. 
So here the Spirit was not to speak of 
himself or apart from the known will 
and purpose of the other Persons of 
the adorable Trinity. Whatsoever h<5 
shall hear from the Father and Son. 
The future is employed, because the 
Spirit was not to be commissioned and 
sent forth, until the glorification of the 
Son. See 1 : 39. He will show (or an- 
nounce to) you things to come. This 
promise found its partial fulfilment in 
the Acts and the Epistles (Acts 21 : 11 ; 
1 Cor. 15 : 24-28, 51-54; 2 Thess. 2 : 
3-12 ; 1 Tim. 4:1); but more especial- 
ly in the Apocalypse. See Rev. 1:1, 
19; 22.: 16, 17. Indeed, one of the 
strongest internal proofs of the inspira- 
tion of the Apocalypse, is this promise 
that the Spirit will reveal things to 
come ; for, as Stier remarks, " if this be 
regarded as unapostolical and spurious, 
we do not simply ask where would be 
the conclusion of the Bible, but where 
would be the worthy and perfect ac- 
complishment of the word which John 
has here in his Gospel recorded?" 

14. He shall glorify me, announces 
the great object of the Spirit's mission. 
As all which he reveals has reference 
to Christ, so in the fulness and clear- 
ness of his revelation is Christ glorified. 
This is declared in the most emphatic 
and sublime terms in 2 Cor. 4 : 6. God 
reveals himself in the heart of the be- 
liever by the enlightening rays of the 
Spirit, so that His glory in the face of 
Jesus Christ is brought to the knowl- 
edge of each one. Thus the glorifica- 
tion of the Father is the glorification of 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XTI. 



391 



15 ' All things that the Father 
hath are mine : therefore said I, 

t Mr. 11 : 27 ; ch. 3 : 55 ; ..t 13 : 3 ; & IT : 10. 

his Son, in whom He reveals himself to 
men, and the Spirit, in thus glorifying 
Jesus by the revelation of his truth, 
glorifies the Father also. The glorifi- 
cation of Jesus Christ is not, therefore, 
a thing to be regarded as an isolated 
fact in the economy of God's love, but 
as that which involves in it the glorifi- 
cation also of the whole Trinity, al- 
though apprehensible to man only in 
Christ Jesus, whose incarnation is the 
onlv medium through which we can ar- 
rive at the knowledge of the invisible 
God. For he shall receive, kc. This 
clause makes known the way in which 
the Spirit is to glorify the Son. He 
shall receive is a varied repetition of the 
phrase, he shall hear, in v. 13. The 
language conforms to an ambassador 
or legate, who receives his instructions 
from the one who sends him forth. 
Thus the Spirit is here spoken of as re- 
ceiving from Christ the truths which 
he is to communicate in his mission to 
this world, as the Comforter, Helper, 
and Illuminator of God's people. Of 
mine, or of that which is mine. This 
indicates, beyond all question, that the 
things which the Spirit is commission- 
ed to reveal, are those relating to the 
work of redemption, which our Re- 
deemer came into the world to accom- 
plish. But, as we have shown repeat- 
edly in our comments on these great 
Trinitarian passages, there is such es- 
sential unity in the Persons of the God- 
head, that the things of Christ are the 
things of God, so that in revealing 
Christ, God also is revealed. We need 
not fear, therefore, that in honoring 
Christ we shall misplace the honor and 
glory which belong to God, for besides 
that He is verily God as well as verily 
man, such ineffable union subsists be- 
tween the Persons of the Sacred Three, 
that in honoring one we honor in like 
manner and in equal degree the others. 
Shall show it unto you. The verb lite- 
rally signifies to announce, as a messen- 
ger, and is the same one which is 
employed in the clause mil skew you 



that he shall take of mine, and 
shall shew it unto you. 



things to come, in the preceding verse. 
This has led some to suppose, that the 
revelations of the Spirit were to be 
limited to those of a prophetic charac- 
ter. But the verb conforms rather to 
the idea of a messenger, who is sent 
forth to announce the will of the one 
who sent him. This may have refer- 
ence to present or to future truth, not 
being necessarily confined to either. In 
v. 13, the connection refers the action 
of the verb to the revelation of future 
events. But in the present verse, it is 
used of a revelation more general and 
comprehensive, embracing all the things 
which pertain to Christ and his king- 
dom. 

15. In order that the disciples might 
not so misapprehend his words, as to 
suppose that the honor and glory of 
the Father was made of secondary im- 
portance in the work of the Spirit, or 
that the things of Christ, were some- 
thing independent and apart from those 
of the Father, our Lord here expressly 
informs them that these things of his 
were those which were possessed also by 
the Father. This great truth, in which 
Stier says that ''our Lord rises from 
the announcement of an economical 
impartation (v. 14-), to the eternal 
foundation of all in the interior, essen- 
tial, eternally trinitarian relationship," 
is repeated even more fully and em- 
phatically in 17 : 10. "What created 
being, even though possessed of all the 
perfections which the mind of man or 
of angels can conceive, could say, in 
regard to the treasures of infinite wis- 
dom, ' all things that the Father hath 
are mine '? ' In the glorification of Jesus, 
by taking the things that are his — 
which belong equally to the Father — 
and revealing them to men, the Spirit 
glorifies the Father also. Thus by this 
one great declaration that all things 
belong equally to the Father and the 
Son, our Lord prevents any misconcep- 
tion of the language which he had just 
employed ; as though the Spirit, by re- 
ceiving the things of his and showing: 



392 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



16 " A little while, and ye shall 
not see me : and again, a little 

u Ver. 10 ; ch.' T : 33 : & 13 : 33 ; & 14 : 19. 



them unto men, would make thereby 
the glory of the Father of inferior im- 
portance. Tlierefore (i. c. on account 
of this community of possession sub- 
sisting between the Father and Son) 
said I, &c. This was not the reason, 
but the justifying ground of what he 
had said. The future, and all that per- 
tains to it, our Lord in his previous 
teaching had declared to belong to the 
Father (see Mark 13 : 32 ; compare also 
Acts 1:1); and therefore the Spirit 
could not receive the revelation of the 
future, as a portion of the things of 
Christ to be revealed, unless this reve- 
lation, as well as all other things which 
belonged to the Father, belonged also 
to Christ. Shall take. In v. 14, it was 
shall receive, which is expressive of 
official subordination, as a legate re- 
ceives his commission and instructions 
from the power in whose name he acts. 
But here the Spirit, by virtue of His un- 
derived aDd coequal power and dignity, 
takes of the things of the Father and 
Son, and shows them unto men. Thus 
these great declarations, while they un- 
fold the respective relations and offices 
assumed by the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, in the work of man's redemption, 
do not in the least degree contravene 
the doctrine of their independent, self- 
existent, coeternal, and coequal nature 
as Persons of the Godhead. 

16. From themes so sublimely mys- 
terious as those descanted on in the 
verses immediately preceding, our Lord 
now condescends to resume those topics 
of consolation which were suited to his 
disciples' present condition. " What a 
transition, or, rather, what a return 
back, between vs. 15 and 16, from the 
depths of the Triune Essence of the God- 
head, to the immediately near present 
of his disciples' destiny, and the great 
change of the now impending day ! " — 
Stier. The announcement here made, 
that he was soon to leave them, was 
doubtless preceded by a short pause, in 
order that the great and sublime truths 
to which he had just given utterance, | 



while, and ye shall see me, w be- 
cause I go to the Father. 

w Yer. 2S ; ch. 13 : 3. 



might be impressed upon their mind, 
and treasured up in their memory. The 
expression, a little while, is in the ori- 
ginal but a single word little, yet its 
sense is well given in our common 
version. Shall not see me ; literally, 
do not see me, the present being em- 
ployed for the future, to denote in a 
tender and solemn manner, that he was 
soon to be removed from their sight by 
death. In regard to the following 
clause, ye shall see me, expositors are 
divided as to whether reference is had 
to his visible presence after his resur- 
rection, or to his spiritual presence in 
the church in all subsequent time. 01- 
shausen remarks : " All the better ex- 
positors are now agreed, that a reference 
to the bodily resurrection is not here 
to be supposed, as is indicated by the 
words, because I go to the Father, with 
which such a reference would not be 
consistent." In company, therefore, 
with almost all modern interpreters, 
after Luther and Calvin, he interprets 
the promise as referring only to the in- 
ternal spiritual work of Christ. This 
also is the exposition of Tholuck and 
Afford. On the other hand, Webster 
and Wilkinson give as the interpreta- 
tion, that "in a very few hours he 
would be taken from them by death ; 
then, after a short time, they would 
see him again, when he should 
rise from the dead." Such also is 
Bloomfield's exposition. Stier, how- 
ever, combines the two interpretations; 
and while, by the force of the words 
again a little while, he would take this 
of the physical reappearance of Christ 
to the disciples after his resurrection, 
would also make this reappearance 
a prophetic type of the spiritual pres- 
ence of our Lord with the church. 
This appears to me to be the true ex- 
position. The obvious antithesis be- 
tween these clauses, rendered still more 
prominent by the repetition of a little 
while, is inconsistent with any exposi- 
tion which makes the one refer prima- 
rily and exclusively to his visible, and 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTEK XVI. 



393 



17 Then said some of his dis- 
ciples among themselves, What is 
this that he saith unto us, A little 
Avhile, and ye shall not see me : 



the other, to his spiritual presence. The 
not seeing and the seeing must, by all 
the laws of interpretation, refer to the 
same kind of presence. If it was his 
bodily presence which was to be with- 
drawn after a little time from their 
sight ; it was his bodily presence, which 
again after a little time was to be en- 
joyed. This reappearance was, how- 
ever, a pledge of the fulfilment of his 
great promise here made and repeated 
after his resurrection, that he would 
always be with them, even unto the 
end of the world. The fact that he 
rose from the dead, and was seen in 
visible form by them for forty days, and 
then ascended into heaven, was to them 
the most convincing and cheering proof, 
that he would vouchsafe to them his 
spiritual presence, according to his 
promise; and hence we do not wonder 
that they returned to Jerusalem from 
the Mount of Ascension with great joy 
(Luke 24 : 52). The clause because I go 
to my Father, which Olshausen regards 
as conclusive evidence that Christ's 
spiritual presence is alone referred to, 
is added simply as proof that he was to 
rise from the dead, since he could not 
otherwise ascend to his Father. As his 
resurrection from the dead was that 
which constituted the principal fact of 
which they were to bear witness (Acts 
1 : 22), the conclusion would inevitably 
follow, that they must have ocular 
proof of this fact, and that it -would be 
but a little w^hile before they should see 
him again. The sentiment fully ex- 
panded would then be : ' a little while 
and I shall be removed from your sight 
by a violent death ; but be not dis- 
heartened at this, for after a short in- 
terval, I shall rise from the dead in 
order to ascend to the Father, and you 
shall see me in bodily form, and thus 
have the surest pledge of the enjoy- 
ment of my spiritual presence which I 
have promised to you.' Because I go, 
&c. This, as above remarked, is ad- 
Vol. III.— 18* 



and again, a little while, and ye 
shall see me : and, Because I go 
to the Father ? 



duced as proof, that he would rise from 
the dead and show himself again after 
a little time to them; and that the scene 
of suffering upon which he was soon to 
enter, lay directly in the path to his 
subsequent glorification. It was not 
then a ground of sorrow, but rather of 
joy, that he was so soon to suffer and die, 
inasmuch as a short time only would 
elapse, before he would enter upon his 
glorified state with the Father. 

17. His disciples did not penetrate 
the meaning of his words, especially 
the apparent contradiction of terms in 
the clauses which they here repeat. 
This shows conclusively that they un- 
derstood the second annunciation, a 
little while and ye shall see me, as refer- 
ring to his bodily presence. Having as 
yet however no consistent views of his 
resurrection, although it had been re- 
peatedly foretold to them, they could 
not reconcile the one assertion with the 
other. It seemed to them as contradic- 
tory a declaration, as that the same 
thing was to be and not to be. No 
difficulty in reconciling this statement 
would have been felt, had the first 
clause been referred by them to his 
death, and the second to his spiritual 
presence. But referring both clauses 
to a physical disappearance and reap- 
pearance, and not remembering what 
he had told them, that on the third day 
he should rise from the dead, they see 
nothing but the most palpable contra- 
diction in the language which he here 
made use of. The clause, because I go 
to my Father, was not in itself obscure, 
for they had so recently and in such 
plain language been informed of this, 
that they could not, except by the 
most unaccountable dulness of mind, 
misapprehend its purport. But they 
did not see the connection of this 
declaration, with the paradoxical, if not 
contradictory assertion which he had 
just made, and which they here repeat, 
in order to give prominence to the ob- 



394 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



18 They said therefore, What 
is this that he saith, A little 
while ? we cannot tell what he 
saith. 

19 Now Jesus knew that they 
were desirous to ask him, and 
said unto them, Do ye inquire 
among yourselves of that I said, 
A little while, and ye shall not 



scure nature of his saying. Those who 
suppose that this discourse was held 
with his disciples on their way from 
the city to the Mount of Olives (see K 
on 14: 31), find here a chasm in the 
conversation, Jesus having withdrawn 
himself, or going on in advance as in 
Mark 10:32; Luke 19:23. But we 
find these pauses very frequent in this 
discourse, and they are much more 
easily explained on the supposition that 
the company was yet in the guest-cham- 
ber, than that they were pursuing their 
way amidst the darkness of night (see 
N. on 18 : 3), to the Mount of Olives, 
Jesus at times advancing beyond them, 
and then calling them to him (Webster 
and Wilkinson) and resuming his dis- 
course. 

Then said some of his disciples. The 
word some, is not in the original, but is 
implied. The idiom is met almost ex- 
actly in the translation, an inquiry 
arose among them. It appears very 
evident, that this was confined to a few 
of the disciples, and that at least some 
of them pondered upon his words in 
silence. And, Because I go, &c. The 
conjunction is here employed to denote, 
that this clause constituted a ground of 
difficulty in itself. The meaning of this 
clause independent of its connection 
with the preceding assertion, could not 
have been mistaken ; but as constitut- 
ing the reason why he should pass away 
from their sight, and then after a very 
little time return to them, its sense 
was obscure. See N. on the preced- 
ing verse. 

18. This verse presupposes that after 
a few moments of discussion and in- 
quiry among themselves as to the pur- 
port of his words, they came to the 



see me : and again, a little while, 
and ye shall see me ? 

20 Verily, verily, I say unto 
you, That ye shall weep and la- 
ment, but the world shall rejoice ; 
and ye shall he sorrowful, but 
your sorrow shall be turned into 
joy- 



settled conviction, that they could at- 
tach no adequate meaning to what he 
had said. They repeat the words which 
constituted the chief ground of their 
difficulty, a little ivhile, for it will be 
seen that this word (in the original little. 
See N. on v. 16), joined as it is with 
both not seeing and seeing, gives em- 
phasis to the apparent contradiction of 
the clauses, or at least renders the sen- 
timent much more confused and ob- 
scure. What is this, &c, i. c. what 
means this little while, of which he 
speaks ? We cannot tell, &c. They de- 
spair of being able to penetrate the 
mystery of his words. What he saith; 
literally, what he is talking about. 
The verb is a different one from that 
employed in the preceding clause. 

19. There was that indescribable 
majesty of demeanor in Jesus, as he 
approached the close of his official la- 
bors, which repressed his disciples from 
all vain curiosity or undue familiarity. 
But although their timidity prevented 
them from ascertaining by inquiry the 
meaning of his language, He was not 
ignorant of what was passing in their 
minds, and repeating the words which 
had so perplexed them, he proceeds to 
explain more fully their meaning. It 
is remarked by Webster and Wilkinson, 
that although our Lord does not here 
restate the words, because I go to the 
Father, yet he explains them in their 
order in vs. 23-27. 

20. Verily, verily, &c. This solemn 
asseveration challenges their most fixed 
attention to what he is about to say, as 
something of the highest importance. 
Ye shall weep and lament. The most 
excessive grief is denoted in these 
words, such as would be indulged in 



A.D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XYI. 



395 



21 x A woman when she is in membereth no more the anguish, 



travail hath sorrow, because her 
hour is come : but as soon as she 
is delivered of the child, she re 



x Is. 26:17. 



wailings and lamentations for the dead 
at funerals. Hence this constitutes a 
plain answer to their inquiry, as to 
what he meant by the words, a little 
while, and ye shall not see me. The ex- 
pression indicates that his death was at 
hand, and that his earthly presence 
would soon be withdrawn from them. 
The effect of this bereavement -would 
be, that they should weep and lament. 
These verbs do not differ much in sig- 
nification, and are designed to give em- 
phasis to the depth of grief here de- 
noted. The first denotes a loud and 
inarticulate wailing for the dead; the 
second is employed of funeral dirges 
and lamentations. This was literally 
fulfilled, as we see in Mark 1G : 10. But 
the world shall rejoice. This is placed 
in marked contrast with the sorrow of 
the disciples at the death of Jesus. 
There can be no doubt that this also 
was literally fulfilled, in the joy felt by 
the priests and rulers in their temporary 
triumph over Jesus. Ye shall be sor- 
rowfid, repeats the sentiment expressed 
in the first clause. The pronoun you, 
in the original is emphatic, and is put 
in strong contrast with the ivorld, which 
is represented as exulting over the 
death of Jesus. But your sorrow shall 
be turned, into joy (literally, shall become 
for joy, i. e. shall serve to produce joy). 
Now our Lord enters upon the explana- 
tion of a little while and ye shall see me. 
The grief of the disciples is here repre- 
sented as a funereal grief, one which was 
to result from the death of their Mas- 
ter. The antithesis refers their joy, 
therefore, to that which should result 
from his restored presence. The ex- 
pression is equivalent to the declara- 
tion, that they should see him again. 
The words of Jesus are therefore those 
of consolation. His disciples would 
lament his death and burial, as though 
he were withdrawn forever from their 
sight. But their sorrow would be 



for joy that a man is born into 
the world. 



speedily turned into joy, at his resur- 
rection and reappearance in visible 
bodily form. This verse throws much 
light on v. 16, and shows that his phy- 
sical and not his spiritual presence, is 
that to which primary reference is there 
made. But as was remarked in the 
comment on that passage, this visible 
appearance of Christ, was the proof 
and foretaste of his spiritual presence 
promised to his disciples after he had 
returned to his Father. 

21. Our Lord by a striking similitude, 
and one of frequent use in the Bible 
(see Isa. 21:3; 24 : 17 ; 37:3; Jer. 
4:31; 22 : 23 ; 30 : 6), illustrates the 
sorrow which his disciples Avould feel 
at his departure, and the joy with which 
they would hail his subsequent return 
to them. A woman; literally, the wo- 
man, the article referring it to class or 
kind. Is in travail, i. e. undergoing 
the pains of child-birth. Hath sorrow 
from the pangs of labor, and the peril 
to which her life is exposed. Because 
her hour (of travail) is come. The word 
hour, is to be taken here, as oftentimes 
elsewhere, in the sense of time. She 
remembereth no more the anguish, i. e. 
she feels it no more ; it is no longer in 
her thoughts, through the superabound- 
ing joy that a child is born unto her. 
The word man (i. e. male child), is here 
put for a child, without regard to its 
sex. It cannot be denied, however, 
that with the Orientals, and especially 
the Jews through the hope wdiich every 
nmrried female indulged, that she might 
be the mother of the promised Messiah, 
a male child was the occasion of livelier 
joy than one of the opposite sex. The 
joy referred to here, is not that alone 
which results from the addition made 
to the human race, but from the natural 
love of offspring implanted in the 
mother's breast, and the sense that her 
extreme suffering is past. The joy re- 
sulting from these combined circum- 



396 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



22 y And jc now therefore have 
sorrow : but I will see you again, 
and "your heart shall rejoice, and 
your joy no man taketh from you. 

23 And in that day ye shall ask 

y Yer. 6. 



stance?, Avas so great and positive, that 
all her past sorrows came no more to 
remembrance. No illustration could 
have been selected better adapted to 
express the superabounding joy of the 
disciples, 'when they should be per- 
mitted to see their risen Master, and 
realize the glory to which he was about 
to be exalted at God's right hand. All 
their sorrow in the dark hour of his ap- 
prehension, trial, crucifixion, and burial 
in the tomb of Joseph, would be obliter- 
ated from their mind, as though these 
sad scenes had never wrung their souls 
with anguish. Webster and Wilkinson 
remark, that the same image of child- 
bearing occurs in Rev. 12 : 2, 5, in con- 
nection with the sorrows and trials of 
the church, and the resurrection and 
ascension of Christ. Olshausen in his 
usual vein finds here a deeper refer- 
ence, than that which lies upon the face 
of the passage in its obvious connec- 
tion. "The proper meaning of the 
figure seems to be, that the death of 
Jesus Christ was, as it were, a painful 
act of travail on the part of all human- 
ity, in which act the perfect man was 
born into the world ; this birth of the 
new man forming the source of eternal 
joy for all, since by him and by his 
power the renovation of the whole is 
made possible." Tholuck hesitates to 
acknowledge this view, which hesita- 
tion Prof. Kendrick in his Note on 
Olshausen pronounces rational, "the 
point of comparison being simply tha,t 
the present distress of the disciples will 
be succeeded by a joy springing out of 
the very cause of their distress, namely 
their sad abandonment by their Master, 
just as the pains of travail are forgotten 
in joy over the new-born child." Al- 
ford. accords with the views of Olshau- 
sen, applying the sentiment however to 
every Christian who is planted in the 
likeness of Christ. There may be an 



me nothing. a Verily, verily, I 
say unto you, "Whatsoever ye shall 
ask the Father in my name, he 
will give it you. 

z Lu. 24 : 41, 52 ; ch. 14 : 1, 27 ; & 20 : 20 ; Ac. 2 : 

46 : & 13 : 52 ; 1 Pe. 1 : 8. 

a Mt. 7 : 7; eh. 14: 13 ; & 15 : 16. 

analogy found here between the joy of 
the mother over her new-born infant, 
and that of the new-born soul, or as 
Luthardt denotes it, the new birth of the 
church, but to seek this as taught other 
than by implication in the comparison, 
is to adopt what is called the double 
sense interpretation, in its most objec- 
tionable form. 

22. Our Lord here applies the com- 
parison to the present and future con- 
dition of his disciples. Ye now there- 
fore have sorrow. ' Your present circum- 
stances are such as to weigh down your 
hearts with grief. But I will see you 
again? This is a repetition of the 
promise, a little while, and ye shall see 
me, and is additional proof that the 
physical appearance of our Lord is there 
referred to. Afford finds here the mani- 
fold meaning, " will see you at my 
resurrection — by my Spirit — at my 
second Advent." Your heart shall re- 
joice, i. e. joy shall pervade your whole 
soul. It was not an external and tran- 
sient joy, but one which was internal 
and abiding. Your joy ; literally, this 
joy of yours. It was their peculiar joy, 
in which no one, unless sustaining a 
like relation to Christ, could share. It 
was a joy which the world knew not of. 
JVo man; literally, no one, the indefi- 
niteness of the expression referring it 
to any agency. Taketh, is the present 
indefinite used emphatically for the 
future. The sentiment is : ' no created 
being in the universe, can at any time 
deprive you of this joy.' 

23. In that day. No specific day or 
period of time is here referred to, but 
the whole future, beginning at the time 
of his resurrection. This as Stier well 
remarks, "is the great turning point of 
the future, which our Lord, since 14: 3, 
has had always before his eyes, and 
which has its commencement in the 
resurrection morning after the night of 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XTI. 



397 



suffering and death." But how are -we 
to explain what is here said, that in 
that day ye shall ask me nothing? A 
bare reference to all the explanations 
given by expositors from Augustine 
downward, no two of whom seem to pre- 
cisely agree, would transcend the limits 
of these brief comments, to which I am 
constrained through want of space to 
confine myself on all these great utter- 
ances of our Lord. To refer this decla- 
ration to the dispensation of the Spirit, 
in the sense that the mind of the dis- 
ciples would then be so enlightened, 
that they would be under no necessity 
of seeking further illumination, would 
be contrary to the whole tenor of the 
apostolical history, and the life and ex- 
perience of the Church. Prayer was 
incessantly offered by the apostles for 
guidance and grace ; and such is the 
and privilege of all believers iu 
every age since their time. On the 
other hand, it will not do to limit it to 
the forty days of Christ's visible pres- 
ence with the disciples after his resur- 
rection, for the question in Acts 1 : (5, 
was a sample, doubtless, of many in- 
quiries proposed to him during this 
period. There remains only the view 
adopted by Stier, and concurred in es- 
sentially by Alford, that "our Lord 
spoke these words concerning the day of 
resurrection or pentecost, only in as far 
as that introductory day was the starting- 
point and type of the perfect day of the 
Spirit, and in its strict hteralness only 
of the consummation and close of this 
latter.' 1 The idea is evidently a pro- 
gressive one. It is as though he had 
said : 'your minds are now in darkness 
and perplexity in view of the circum- 
stances of trial by which you and I are 
surrounded. But soon the darkness 
and sorrow which possess you, will pass 
away. You will then see clearly the 
relation of my suffering and death to 
human redemption ; and in my resur- 
rection and reappearance, you will find 
the pledge of my presence and faithful- 
ness to the very end. Then you will 
enter upon that dispensation of spir- 
itual light and blessedness, which in the 
end will leave nothing for you to de- 
sire, nothing which you will not under- 



stand. In that day of consummated 
bliss, you will have occasion to ask me 
nothing, all these points of present 
mystery and obscurity being fully 
cleared up to your mind.' See 1 Cor. 
13: 12. Verily, verily, &c. The usual 
formula of asseveration to show the im- 
portance of the truth about to be an- 
nounced. Whatsovcr ye shall ask, &c. 
There is no contradiction between this 
promise and the pj^ceding declaration, 
with the interpretation above given it. 
The way to attain to that state of per- 
fected blessedness and knowledge, is to 
pray for the spiritual blessings promised 
in answer to prayer offered to God in 
the name of Jesus Christ. " The way 
to ask nothing any more, is to ask and 
pray the more diligently until that day 
comes." Stier. There is no such con- 
trast between me in the first clause, and 
the Father in the second, as to teach 
that it is not lawful to address prayer 
to Christ ; for as Alford remarks, ask- 
ing the Father in Christ's name is in 
fact asking him. Indeed we may go 
further and say, that such are the mu- 
tual relations of the Father and Son 
in the economy of redemption, that 
no blessing can be asked of either, in- 
dependent of or apart from the other. 
The form of expression made use of by 
Jesus, corresponds to the official superi- 
ority of the Father in the work of re- 
demption, which renders it appropriate 
that prayer should be offered to Him in 
the name of the Son — not in such a 
sense, however, as to forbid our ad- 
dressing prayer to the Son himself. ATe 
have the most indubitable evidence 
that the apostles prayed at times di- 
rectly to Jesus (Acts 1 : 2i ; 1 : 59, 60 ; 
2 Cor. 12 : 8). In regard to the restric- 
tion of this prayer to things which are 
agreeable to the mind of the Spirit, as 
opposed to the notion that the promise 
embraces every thing which may be 
asked for, see Xs. on Matt. 7 : 7 ; 21 : 
22. Some expositors construct the 
sentence so as to read, he shall give it 
you in my name. The sentiment is not 
changed by such a construction, but 
the usual arrangement of the words 
harmonizes best with the order in v. 
21. . 



398 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



24 Hitherto have ye asked 
nothing in mj name : ask, and ye 
shall receive, b that your joy may 
be full. 

25 These things have I spoken 

» &Ch. 15:11. 



24. Hitherto have ye ashed nothing, 
&c. Christ's office of Mediator and 
Intercessor had not yet fully begun, 
nor had they until now been directed 
to offer their prayers to God, in his 
name, or on his account. This form of 
prayer was suitable to be offered only 
after his glorification. The basis on 
which they were to be heard and ac- 
cepted of God, was the obedience and 
death of Jesus Christ, as an atonement 
for sin. Hence the command now 
given was an advance on that in the 
Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7 : 7), the 
appended clause in my name, revealing 
the ground of the efficacy of prayer, 
which had hitherto been concealed 
from the most eminent saints on earth. 
Their prayers through faith in a Saviour 
to come, and by virtue of his atoning sa- 
crifice, shedding its blessings by way of 
anticipation on all the past, were effec- 
tual, but yet were not offered in the 
name of the coming Messiah, but simply 
to God, who had revealed Himself as a 
merciful Being to whom prayer was to 
be made. But now as the atoning 
Sacrifice was about to be offered, and 
Christ was soon to ascend to the Media- 
torial throne, which had been prepared 
as the reward of his obedience even unto 
death, the disciples and all who were to 
come after them, are directed to offer 
prayer in His name. "As in the Old 
Testament way of holiness, the prob- 
lem had ever been to learn better how 
to pray, so also we have in the practice 
of prayer in the name of Jesus, the only 
way of progress towards perfect holi- 
ness, knowledge, and the joy of the 
heart." Bieger. Ask and ye shall re- 
ceive. See N. on Matt. 7 : 7. That 
your joy, &c. The eventual sense is 
here intended. See N. on Matt. 1 : 22. 
The joy here spoken of, is that which 
results from a sense of the Saviour's 
presence (v. 22). The great facts of 



unto you in proverbs : "but the 
time cometh, when I shall no 
more speak unto you in proverbs, 
but I shall shew you plainly of the 
Father. 



his resuiTection, ascension, and prom- 
ised presence in and through the Spirit, 
would be confirmed by prayer offered 
in his name ; and hence this was the 
way to attain to that fulness and perfec- 
tion of joy which was reserved for 
them. May be full or complete. This 
fulness of joy is to be reached by de- 
grees. It is not the result of a single 
act or religious emotion, but of a life 
of faith, prayer, and activity in Christ's 
service. 

25. These things, &c. Here is ano- 
ther of those pause-divisions of this 
great discourse. The things here re- 
ferred to, are his previous declarations 
in regard to his relations to the Father, 
the advent of the promised Spirit, his 
withdrawal from their sight, and speedy 
return to cneer them for a time with 
his presence. These and similar truths 
had been revealed in language above 
their comprehension, blinded as they 
had been by prejudice, and misconcep- 
tions of the nature of His office and 
mission. The word here rendered 
proverbs, would have been better trans- 
lated, figurative discoiirses, dark say- 
ings, and hence obscure to the under- 
standing. Not only were the words of 
this discourse dark and enigmatical, but 
the same was true of much of his pre- 
vious instructions. This resulted, as is 
above said, from the prejudices and 
false conceptions of the Messianic king- 
dom, and also from the fact that much 
of his discourse was a revelation of the 
future, which is always more or less 
obscure, until the events themselves in- 
terpret the predictions. But his work 
of personal instruction was now about 
to be ended. The great events of his 
death, burial, resui'rection, and ascen- 
sion, were soon to be matters not of 
prophecy, but of history. All would 
be made clear to their minds, which up 
to the present time was enveloped in 



A. D. 33.] CHAPTER XVI. 

26 e At that day ye shall ask 
in my name : and -I say not unto 

c Ver. 23. 



399 



mystery. Tlie time -cometh and is near 
at hand. The time of the Spirit's dis- 
pensation commencing on the day of 
Pentecost is here referred to. Alford 
would not refer this to any one period 
of time exclusive of all others, but 
Avould understand it of the several 
steps of spiritual knowledge. But 
these steps or degrees of spiritual 
knowledge must have some starting- 
point, and to this the expression most 
unquestionably refers. The contrast 
between his manner of speech while 
personally present with them, and that 
which was to characterize his spiritual 
communications, and to be followed by 
such attainments in knowledge of divine 
tilings, is only intelligible, on the sup- 
position that he refers in the latter to 
the teachings of the Spirit which began 
on the day of Pentecost, and to enjoy 
which, they were commanded after his 
ascension to tarry at Jerusalem (Acts 
1 : 4, 8). The words, when I shall no 
more, &c, have obvious reference to his 
teachings and instructions when bodily 
present with his disciples. These teach- 
ings were of necessity communicated 
in language somewhat unintelligible 
and obscure ; not through a want of 
clearness and method in the teacher, 
but the blindness of mind of the per- 
sons taught, and the nature of the sub- 
ject, which in many of its aspects and 
relations lay in the future, and could 
not be apprehended by finite minds, as 
though the things spoken of were al- 
ready enacted and past. But although 
his personal instructions were soon to 
be ended, yet by his spiritual presence 
he would continue to impart unto them 
knowledge, and that too in language so 
plain as to need no explanation. I shall 
show you plainly of the Father ; literally, 
announce to you •plainly of things con- 
cerning the Father, i. e. concerning the 
ways of God, especially in the w r ork of 
human redemption. Some expositors 
refer this to the counsels of the Father, 
that is, the Father's will as touch- 
ing Christ's kingdom ; others interpret 



you, that I will pray the Father 
for you : 



it concerning the Father, as being in the 
Son, and the Son in the Father, that is, 
the essential unity of the Father and Son. 
Reference is had here to the work of 
the Comforter (14 : 26 ; 15 : 26), whose 
inward teaching would be but the ex- 
pression of His words and commands, 
who had sent him forth from the Fa- 
ther. Alford quotes Olshausen, that 
the shewing plainly, "is spoken here by 
the Lord in its ideal perfection (as it 
will hereafter be) ; and is only approx- 
imated to on earth ; for as long as the 
old man yet lives in us, w T e require still 
the Lord's intercessory prayer (17 : 15), 
daily w-ashing from the pollution of the 
world ; by which intercession alone the 
faithful man, notwithstanding his im- 
perfection can enjoy in peace the grace 
of God vouchsafed to him." It should 
be remembered, however, that it is not 
so much the perfection and summation 
of knowledge which is here referred to, 
as the plain and open manner in which 
it is communicated. The simple idea is, 
that the instructions of our Lord while 
w r ith his disciples on earth, w r ere neces- 
sarily somewhat obscure, and they had 
oftentimes been obliged to ask him the 
meaning of his words ; but in the dis- 
pensation of the Spirit which was now 
at hand, every communication would be 
thoroughly understood, for it was His 
province to guide them into all truth, 
and to take of the things of Christ and 
shew it unto them (see 16 : 15). 

26. In that day. See N. on v. 23. This 
is reconciled with what is there said, by 
referring it to the commencement of 
that great time-period, when there 
still existed the necessity of prayer for 
more perfect light and knowledge. 
"When the end of that day is reached, 
in which it will melt into the fulness of 
eternity, into perfect knowledge and 
holiness, then indeed there will be no 
more asking." Stier. Our Lord in the 
words in that day, v. 23, seems to have 
passed beyond the boundaries of time, 
and rested his thoughts upon the per- 
fect knowledge and blessedness of his 



400 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



followers, which left them nothing fur- 
ther to ask of him. But almost in the 
same breath he tells them, that what- 
soever they asked the Father in his 
name should be given them. This 
shows that his thoughts suddenly revert 
again to the time of their earthly pil- 
grimage, anterior to their entering 
upon their heavenly rest. In the repe- 
tition of the phrase in that day, we are 
justified therefore from the context 
which immediately precedes, in mak- 
ing it refer to the time which they were 
to spend on earth, instructed and illu- 
minated by the Spirit of promise. This 
was a period of prayer and eager desire 
for spiritual knowledge. They were 
not to remit .their efforts to grow in 
grace and the knowledge of Jesus 
Christ, until they were called away to 
enter upon their heavenly rest. Indeed, 
as they approached that moment when 
all prayer and spiritual conflict, all 
doubt and despondency would end, and 
the soul be satisfied with the realization 
of its highest aspirations, the more 
ardently would they offer prayer to 
God in the name of Jesus. Thus Stier 
remarks, " The growing knowledge of 
the Father of Jesus Christ, as our 
Father, leads even more deeply into 
prayer, and the exercise and experience 
of prayer requires again that knowl- 
edge." I say not unto you. There cer- 
tainly can be no denial of the interces- 
sory mediation of the Son, for not only 
is that mediation clearly and explicitly 
promised in this last discourse of Jesus, 
but it is the constant doctrine of the 
Epistles (see Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7 : 25 ; 
1 John 2 : 1). The negation cannot 
therefore be absolute, but must be so 
modified as to harmonize with this 
truth. Prof. Stuart explains it as 
equivalent to, " I need not repeat to 
you what I have expressly promised." 
This is substantially the exposition of 
Grotius, which Alford thinks comes 
nearest to the truth, although it does 
not express the whole meaning, " I 
pass by that, as less important than that 
which I now infer from it." Alford 
ingrafts upon this exposition, the set- 
ting forth in the strongest light their 
reconciliation and access to the Father. 



He therefore explains our Lord's words : 
' ye shall ask the Father in my name, 
and / do not now say unto you — I do 
not state it in this form, — that I will 
ask the Father for you — as if there 
were no relation of love and mercy be- 
tween the Father and yourselves; (v. 
27) for the Father himself loveth you — 
why ? — because ye love and believe on 
me.' This is also Stier's view : " The 
Lord is far from denying his continu- 
ous and ever-necessary intercession. 
He rather limits it to the special mean- 
ing which he now assigns it, viz., that 
he repels every notion of intercession, 
which would represent the Father as 
not already loving." This I think to 
be the true interpretation, and one 
happily and briefly expressed by Web- 
ster and Wilkinson : u To say nothing 
about my asking the Father for you, 
the Father himself loveth you," &c. 
The passage is far from teaching that 
there will be only one intercessory 
prayer, offered at a particular time, and 
never after to be repeated — for that is 
expressly contradicted by Heb. 7 : 25 — 
but that this intercessory prayer is not 
designed as a means to avert God's 
wrath, or to awaken in the Eternal 
Mind, a feeling of love for them,, since 
the Father himself loves them, and is 
ready, self-moved and of his own abun- 
dant compassion and tenderness, to 
grant to all who love His Son Jesus 
Christ, the spiritual blessings which they 
desire. The idea seems simply to be 
this : ' God the Father so loves those 
who in the compact of redemption are 
given to His Son (6 : 37), and whom he 
has drawn to him (6 : 44), that he re- 
quires not the intercession of Jesus, to 
render Him accessible to them, because 
He himself already loves them for the 
love which they bear His Son, and for 
their faith in Him as one truly sent 
from God (v. 27).' The intercession of 
the Son is not rendered useless or nu- 
gatory, by this love of the Father to- 
wards them in whose behalf it is offered ; 
for this is the channel in which the 
love of the Father flows forth to the 
believer, and is the declaration of the 
Son's pleasure, that the love of the 
Father should thus be bestowed upon 



A. D. 33.] CHAPTER XVI, 

27 rf For the Father himself 
loveth you, because ye have loved 
me, and have e believed that I came 
out from God. 

d Ch. 14:21, 23. 



His chosen one?. What encouragement 
is here furnished to believers in Christ. 
Not only is the promised intercession 
of their Lord, the sure pledge of their 
final deliverance from sin and misery, 
and participation in the peace and 
blessedness of heaven ; but the love 
of the Father, so free, so abundant, 
so spontaneous, ensures the same 
blessed result in perfect harmony with 
the will of the Son. 

27. This verse has been substantially 
explained in the exposition of v. 26. 
The logical relation introduced by for, 
is very manifest. There was in itself 
no need that Christ should pray for his 
followers, for the Father himself so 
loved them, that He would grant their 
requests made in the name of his Son. 
The pronoun himself has the force of 
self-moved, unsolicited, and stands op- 
posed to the idea, that there was some- 
thing in the Father, which would ex- 
clude them from His favor, unless His 
love of complacency was awakened by 
the intercession of Christ. The Son 
loves them as his purchased inheritance ; 
the Father loves them, because they 
love and believe on His Son, and listens 
to the intercessory prayer of Christ on 
their behalf, as the declaration of his 
will and pleasure in regard to those 
who have believed on him (17 : 24). 
That I came out from God. On the 
use of the preposition to denote from 
the side of, with the idea of the closest 
proximity, see IN. on 15 : 26. The 
preposition in this relation denotes the 
very opposite in regard to motion, 
to that employed in the second clause 
of 1 : 1 (on which see Xote), and brings 
out alike with that great passage, the 
essential unity of the Son with the 
Father, and at the same time His dis- 
tinct and independent personality. 
This same preposition is employed in 1 : 
6, but in a secondary sense of by God, 
or from God, as His messenger. 



401 



28 f I came forth from the Fa- 



ther, and am 



into the 



world : again, I leave the world, 



and go to the Father. 

eYer. 80; ch. 3:13; & IT: S. 



/Ch. 13:8. 



28. This verse is designed to confirm 
their faith, by a reassertion of the fact, 
that he had actually come forth from 
the Father, and was about to return to 
Him again. / came forth from the 
Father, means something more than 
simply to be born into the world. It 
refers to his preexistent state of ineffa- 
ble bliss with the Father, and hence is 
followed here by the clause, am come 
into the world, which relates to his 
natural birth, and is not a pleonastic 
repetition of the preceding clause. In 
the following clauses which speak of 
his departure from the world and re- 
turn to his Father, we have the same 
twofold form of expression; I leave the 
world, referring to his departure by 
death, and go to the Father, denoting 
his resumption of that state of glory 
which he had with the Father before 
the foundation of the world (17 : 5, 24). 
Nothing can be more explicit than these 
declarations of his, in regard to his 
preexistent nature and incarnation. 
Indeed the evidence of his divinity and 
humanity runs all along through this 
discourse in luminous and parallel lines; 
so that on the one hand, we see in. 
Him our Almighty Saviour, and on the 
other, one who entered fully into our 
nature, and thus fitted himself to be a 
compassionate and merciful High Priest, 
having been " tempted in all points as we 
are and yet without sin." Heb. 4 : 15. 

29. There was something so loving 
and cheering in his words — especially 
in the declaration that the Father from 
whom he had come forth, and to whom 
he was soon to return, so loved them, 
that of Himself He would grant them 
rich supplies of grace and strength, pro- 
vided that they preferred their request 
to Him in his name — that they all profess 
to understand his words, and renew the 
expression of their faith in him as one 
who had come forth from God. There 
may have been in these words of the 



402 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



29 His disciples said unto him, 
Lo, now speakest thou plainly, 
and speakest no proverb. 

30 Now are we sure that 9 thou 

g Oh. 21 : 17. 



disciples, a slight allusion to the promise 
made in v. 25, the intimation being 
that he did not speak to them in pro- 
verbs or dark and mysterious sayings, as 
he had said, but with a clearness which 
put all misconception of his words out 
of the question. In this averment, 
they probably emphasized now, in op- 
position to his words in v. 25, the hour 
cometh, &c. "The hour to which the 
Lord had referred, appears to them al- 
ready come, notwithstanding that he 
had expressly said that he spoke for 
the present in parables." Stier. But 
they were far from understanding the 
full meaning of those divine utterances, 
to which they had been listening. Au- 
gustine well expresses it : "So little do 
they understand, that they cannot even 
understand that they do not under- 
stand." It cannot be overlooked, how- 
ever, in the general view of the train 
of thought and expression, that our 
Lord seeing the great perplexity into 
which they had been thrown by his 
previous words (vs. IT, 18), did speak 
from v. 19, much more openly and 
plainly in regard to his going again 
to the Father, and the consequent ex- 
pression of his Father's love to them, 
than he had before spoken. His closing 
words in v. 28, brought them again to 
the contemplation of what he had said 
in v. 16, and finding that they had at- 
tained to a clearer conception of what 
he meant by returning to the Father, 
than when this mystery was first an- 
nounced to them, in the fulness of 
their joy, and as if to make amends for 
their previous dulness, they exclaim 
that every thing is made plain, and that 
he no longer speaks to them in lan- 
guage obscure or hard to be understood. 
30. The disciples here profess their 
faith in our Lord's omniscience : now are 
we sure (literally, now do we know) that 
thou lenowest all -things. But what had 
Jesus said that led them to this conclu- 



knowest all things, and needest 
not that any man should ask thee : 
by this A we believe that thou 
earnest forth from God. 



h Ver. 



ch. 17:8. 



sion? Evidently he had so interpreted 
their inmost thoughts and feelings, that 
they were fully convinced that their 
hearts were open to his view. His 
words from v. 19, had been so perti- 
nent to the difficulties with which their 
minds had been perplexed, that it was 
as though their thoughts had been ex- 
posed to him, by inquiries on all the 
points brought to view. He had an- 
swered questions which had arisen in 
their minds, but to which they had 
given no open expression. No higher 
evidence could be given that he was 
fully conversant with all their thoughts, 
than had been furnished by his response 
to what lay concealed from human eye 
in the recesses of their mind. The ex- 
pression all things, is not to be restricted 
to all things in their mind, but inferen- 
tially embraces the thoughts of all men, 
and indeed the whole universe of being 
and action. Needest not that any man 
shoidd ask thee questions, in order that 
you may become acquainted with the 
points necessary to be cleared up to his 
right understanding of what is said. 
Our Lord had anticipated and answered 
their questions, as clearly and orderly, 
as though they had proposed them in 
open terms; and from this they cor- 
rectly inferred, that he needed no open 
interrogations to reply to the questions 
which lay concealed in the heart of any 
man. Stier so well expresses this idea, 
that I cannot forbear quoting him: 
" All other teachers must be diligently 
questioned by their disciples, if they 
would enter into their condition of mind 
and effectually teach them— but He who 
came out from God needed this not. 
As they thus invert the Lord's word in 
v. 23— for He had spoken of their not 
needing any longer to ask — they would 
in fact assent (by a very unwarranted 
anticipation) — -Thou speakest now so 
plainly and tellest us so clearly unasked 
what is in our hearts, that we also 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVI. 



403 



31 Jesus answered them, Do 
ye now believe ? 

32 * Behold, the hour cometh, 
yea, is now come, that ye shall be 

i Mt. 26 : SI ; Ma. 14 : 27. 7c Ch. 20 : 10. 

have no need to ask thee any thing." 
It is very evident from their words, 
that they had misapprehended the true 
purport of vs. 23-25, which referred to 
the times of the promised Spirit, but 
which they supposed had been realized 
in his very utterances on the present 
occasion. But this does not impair the 
soundness of their conclusion, that he 
must be endowed with omniscience to 
know so well what was passing in their 
mind. That thou earnest forth, &c. As 
their confession of faith did not embrace 
in so many words, the supplementary 
truth to this, that he was about to re- 
turn to the Father, some expositors 
seize upon this as proof, that their faith 
was yet too weak for the reception of 
the whole truth, as it had been an- 
nounced by Jesus. But is not the 
omission one which was very natural, 
and perfectly consistent with their be- 
lief in all which he had said ? Nothing 
is more common than the reference to 
a whole proposition, for brevity's sake, 
by its first words, or opening clause. 
It is very unlikely, at the very time 
they were expressing their full con- 
viction that he knew the thoughts of 
every heart, and their faith in the truth 
of his declaration that he came forth 
from God, that they should designedly 
omit his solemn assurance that he was 
about to leave the world and go to the 
Father, through doubt or a want of 
courage to commit themselves to this 
declaration (Sfcier). It was no such ad- 
mixture of faith and unbelief, no such 
want of boldness to commit themselves 
to the whole declaration in v. 28, but true 
and childlike trust and confidence, which 
led them to make this confession of 
their faith, after listening to the won- 
derful words of Jesus. There was 
doubtless much darkness and error in 
their mind, much unbelief and sin yet 
to be eradicated from their heart ; but 
yet their words were sincere, their love 



scattered, * every man to his 
own, and shall leave me alone : 
and ; yet I am not alone, because 
the Father is with me. 

ZCh. 8:29; & 14: 10, 11. 

deep and tender, and their faith, im- 
perfect as it was compared with its 
power and strength after their baptism 
of the Spirit, embraced all his declara- 
tions. 

31, 32. There was an over-confidence 
indicated by their words, which our 
Lord deemed it proper to check. There 
is however no irony here, as Webster 
and Wilkinson suppose, but the tone of 
deep solicitude and tender affection. 
' Do ye now believe ? Would that your 
faith were so confirmed, that it would 
be proof against all trial and tempta- 
tion. But behold the hour cometh,' 1 &c. 
This makes out a clear and natural con- 
nection between vs. 31 and 32, and 
leads me to reject the notion of Stier, 
and Alford, that this clause is an asser- 
tion and not a question. The clause 
yea, is now come, is an emphatic as- 
sertion, that the time was close at hand, 
when they should forsake him in the 
manner here predicted. Ye shall be 
scattered. See Matt. 26 : 31 ; Mark 14 : 
21. Every man to his own, i. e. each 
shifting for himself, and seeking a hid- 
ing-place which he deems most se- 
cure. Many expositors try to elicit 
more from this simple clause than the 
words justify. Bengel, and with him 
Stier and Alford, refer the phrase his 
own, to those things which they had 
left, previous to their attaching them- 
selves to the company of Jesus. This 
would constitute a defection infinitely 
worse than that of Peter ; for he denied 
his Lord through the impulse of fear, 
but with no desire or intention of for- 
saking him for the things which he had 
before left for his sake. Shall leave me 
alone in the midst of my enemies. 
Alone, so far as earthly friends are con- 
cerned. How truly this was fulfilled 
on that very night, we find recorded in 
Matt. 26 : 56 ; Mark 14 : 50. Yet lam 
not alone. This is one of the most sub- 
lime declarations which was ever made. 



404 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



33 These things I have spoken 
unto you, that m in me ye might 
have peace. n In the world ye 

mis. 9:6; ch. 14:27; Eo. 5:1; Ep. 2:14; 
Col. 1 : 20. 



On that dark and awful night, when 
his disciples fled in terror from the 
band of fierce and brutal men, who 
with savage cruelty and insult were 
leading Jesus from the garden, and 
when, as far as the human, eye could 
judge of circumstances, he was bereft 
of all sympathy and friendship, there 
was with him as a comforter and sup- 
porter, the great and eternal God, from 
whom he had come on this errand of 
love and mercy, and who was soon to 
receive him again to that state of glo- 
rious exaltation, which he had possessed 
from the ages of eternity. God the 
Father did not leave his beloved Son to 
enter alone upon his great redemptive 
work, but was with him through all the 
scenes of his bitter agony, sympathizing 
in his distress and anguish of spirit, even 
when as the God of infinite justice, it 
was necessary to bruise him and put 
him to grief and make his soul an offer- 
ing for sin (Isa. 53 : 10). The expres- 
sion with me, denotes here as in 8 : 29 
(on which see Note), the most intimate 
connection, not one of mere compan- 
ionship, but of participation in every 
thing that is done, felt, or suffered by 
the other. The mind starts back with 
horror at the impious daring of men, 
who would presume to offer indignity to 
One, united in such ineffable bonds of 
companionship with God. 

33. Here we are brought to the final 
close of this sublime discourse, and the 
comprehensive summary of its grand 
purpose, that in him the disciples might 
have peace. The phrase in me, refers to 
that living faith in him, so vividly rep- 
resented in 15 : 1-8, by the organic 
connection which subsists between the 
vine and its branches. It was only by 
their union with him, and confidence in 
his supreme power and faithfulness, 
that they could enjoy that inward se- 
renity and peace, which would lift them 
above the trials and vicissitudes of life, 
and especially the opposition and per- 



shall have tribulation : ° but be 
of good cheer : p I have overcome 
the world. 

n Ch. 15 : 19, 20. 21 ; 2 Ti. 3 : 12. o Ch. 14 : 1. 
p Eo. 8 : 37 ; Uo. 4 : 4 ; & 5 : 4. 

secution which they mijrht expect from 
the enemies of truth. The word p>eace, 
is here put in contrast with tribulation, 
and hence embraces not only the idea 
of inward serenity, but also of hope and 
confidence of salvation in the midst of 
trials and dangers. These last words of 
Jesus have never failed of the result, to 
which they had such merciful reference. 
Thousands have experienced their ani- 
mating, renovating, peace-inspiring in- 
fluence, when ready to sink under the 
accumulated sufferings, which a revenge- 
ful and persecuting world in its hostil- 
ity to their Master was heaping upon 
them. But not to those only who have 
been called to pass through the fur- 
nace of persecution, have these words 
of Jesus brought peace, consolation, 
and encouragement; believers in all 
ages and in all conditions of life, have 
drawn from this rich and heavenly dis- 
course unspeakable peace and comfort. 
In no other portion of the gospels, 
does the soul come in more sensible 
contact with the blessed Saviour, than 
in this discourse and the sublime prayer 
with which it is brought to a close. In 
the world, i. e. while you live in the 
world. Stier would refer in the world, 
as opposed to in me, to indwelling 
sin, unbelief, and spiritual imperfection. 
This is doubtless true, yet the principal 
reference, in the light of such passages 
as vs. 1-3, not to refer to other predic- 
tions of open and violent persecution, 
is to the opposition which they must 
expect from the enemies of truth. Al- 
ford very well expresses it: " This trib- 
ulation is not only persecution from the 
world, but trouble and inward distress, 
while we are in the world, a comforting 
assurance that he is in Christ and no 
longer of the world. (Stier)." Be of 
good, cheer. Take courage and be not 
disheartened. For I have overcome the 
world, and thus in my victory over every 
form of evil and opposition, secured to 
you a final triumph over all your and 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVII. 



405 



my enemies. The pronoun /, in the 
original is emphatic, and refers to the 
inherent, underived power of Jesus, who 
was united to the Father in the bonds 
of coequal fellowship, and had ample 
power of himself to crush every foe 
to truth, and bring his chosen ones in 
peace and safety to the inheritance of 
the saints in light. Here is the ground 
of all faith, confidence, and hope. There 
is tribulation and dismay without and 
within (see 2 Cor. 1 : 5). Only as the 
soul rests in Jesus, and confides in his 
power to save from evil, can it attain to 
that spiritual peace and comfort, which 
is the foretaste of blessedness above. 

CHAPTER XVII. 
1-26. Christ's last prater with 
his disciples. Jerusalem. Evening 
introducing the sixth day of the Week. 
This prayer doubtless followed imme- 
diately upon the close of the preceding 
discourse. In the nature of the case, it 
is almost certain that it could not have 
been offered on the way from the city to 
the garden of Gethsemane. Such calm 
and continuous supplication implies some 
quiet and secluded place, like the guest- 
chamber, and not a great thoroughfare 
out of the city, upon which, even to a 
late hour of night, on such an occasion 
as the passover, would be found many 
persons going to and fro. It was ut- 
tered, therefore, beyond all question, 
just before they left the upper room to 
repair, as they were wont to do each 
night, to the Mount of Olives. As it 
regards the nature and design of this 
most remarkable prayer, it has gener- 
ally been styled our Lord's intercessory 
prayer, and so it is, as far as its great 
features can be expressed in a single 
word. Yet our word intercessory, does 
not convey the full idea which we 
wish to express, when we apply it to 
this prayer of Jesus. It seems to con- 
vey too much the notion of a petition, 
offered by one to his superior. Such 
an idea must not be suffered to enter 
upon our conception of this prayer. 
Christ did not ask these blessings for 
his disciples, as a man asks the favor 
of God for himself or his fellow-man. 
It was the Eternal Son who here ad- 



dresses the Father, and his prayer 
is to be regarded as a great DECLA- 
RATION OF HIS WILL, in respect to 
those who have been given him in the 
solemn covenant of redemption. It 
is his almighty fiat, addressed to the 
Father, as Him from whom he came 
forth, and as the One that had cove- 
nanted to save and bless all who by the 
drawings of His ineffable love had come 
to Jesus Christ. It is the proclamation 
of his eternal purpose in conjunction 
with that of the Father, " to save to the 
uttermost all who come to God through 
him." We must not lose sight of this 
great feature of the prayer, for prayer 
it is, although only such as we may con- 
ceive would be offered by one, officially 
subordinate to God, yet in all the es- 
sential attributes of his character, the 
full equal of the Father. Webster and 
Wilkinson have seized upon the true 
idea, that " the language is rather that 
of communion with an equal than peti- 
tion to a superior." 

In regard to the composition of the 
prayer, the words flow on in simple ma- 
jesty, free from all obscurity of construc- 
tion, so plain that the most unlettered 
man can discern the true sense, and 
yet having such profound depth of 
meaning, that the eternal mind of 
Jehovah were as easily sounded by a 
finite intelligence, as this wondrous 
outpouring of the heart of Jesus, in 
behalf of those who are embraced in 
the covenant of Infinite love. Olshau- 
sen remarks, that with all their per- 
spicuity and freedom from difficulties, 
the thoughts are so unfathomably pro- 
found, that every attempt to exhaust 
them is in vain. So Luther : " Plain 
and artless as it sounds, it is so deep, 
rich, and wide, that no one can find its 
bottom or extent." Tholuck and 01- 
shausen both quote Spencer as remark- 
ing, "that he never ventured to preach 
on this prayer of Christ, inasmuch as 
the full understanding of it, surpasses 
the measure of faith which the Lord 
usually imparts to his people in their 
earthly pilgrimage." As this sainted 
preacher drew near his end, he caused 
it to be read three times aloud to him, 
thereby expressing how dear and con- 



406 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



CHAPTER XVII. 



THESE words spake Jesus, and 
lifted up his eyes to heaven. 



soling it was to him, although so far 
above his full comprehension. Similar 
sentiments have been uttered by such 
profound expositors, as Bengel, Melanc- 
thon, Stier, all of whom bow in the 
deepest reverence to this " high priest- 
ly prayer," as the latter of these expos- 
itors terms it, and acknowledge their 
inability to reach its full significancy. 

The general divisions of this inter- 
cessory prayer, are brought out the 
most distinctly and satisfactorily by 
Stier. He reduces it all to three main 
divisions. Vs. 1-5, the prayer for the 
glorification of the Son, as the ground 
and summary of the whole ; 6-19, the 
specific intercession for his own whom 
he leaves behind in the world ; 20-26, 
prayer in the widest comprehension for 
his whole church, all one in him as he 
is in the Father. The first of these gen- 
eral divisions, Tholuck would extend so 
as to include vs. 1-8, and it must be 
confessed that vs. 6-8, seem rather to 
be connected with the designed mani- 
festation of his glory, referred to in the 
previous context, than with his specific 
prayer for his disciples, which fol- 
lows from v. 9. The remaining divi- 
sions of Tholuck accord with those of 
Stier. This same general division is 
adopted by Olshausen, only the second 
and third divisions of Stier and Tholuck, 
he unites in one, thus dividing the 
prayer into two parts, 1-8, and 9-26. 
In the subdivision of the second part, 
he finds three subordinate parts, the 
prayer in vs. 11-16, that his disciples 
may be kept in his name ; then in 17- 
19, that they may be sanctified in the 
truth, as he has sanctified himself for 
them ; and lastly, in 20-26, expanding 
his view over the whole future church, 
represented by the Apostles in its germ, 
prayer that all believers may form such 
a unity in love, as that which exists be- 
tween the Father and Son. 

In the exposition of this prayer, we 
must never lose sight of the great fact 
of the supreme divinity of Jesus, which 



and said, Father, a the hour is 
come; glorify thy Son, that thy 
Son also may glorify thee : 



a Ch. 12:23; &13: 



it was the main design of John's Gospel 
to prove and enforce. This will enable 
us to understand, what would otherwise 
be unintelligible, such declarations as 
those made in vs. 5, 10, 11, 21, 24, 25. 
Nor on the other hand, must the hu- 
manity of Jesus be overlooked, which 
interpenetrates all those passages in the 
prayer, in which our Lord acknowledges 
an official subordination to the Father, 
as in vs. 2, 8, 18, 22, etc. By thus 
keeping before the mind Christ's divin- 
ity and humanity, there will be found 
no clashing or conflicting between the 
various portions of this prayer, in which 
he is declared to have possessed a glory 
with the Father from eternity (v. 5), and 
yet to have been sent of Him on a mis- 
sion to this world (vs. 3, 8, &c.) 

1. These words spake Jesus, &c. This 
establishes fully the connection between 
the previous discourse of Jesus and his 
prayer which is here recorded. It also 
strongly implies that the previous dis- 
course was spoken continuously, and 
not in a fragmentary manner, as would 
have been the case, had our Lord ut- 
tered it, as some expositors suppose, on 
his way out of the city. See N. on 14: 
31. Lifted up his eyes to heaven. This 
is the natural direction of the eye in 
prayer, the habitation of God being re- 
garded as high above the firmament. 
According to the Jewish idea, the seat 
of Jehovah, was in the heaven of heav- 
ens, or above the starry heavens. See 
N. on Matt. 6 : 9. Hence a Jew in of- 
fering prayer to the Deity, would look 
upward. No proof can be drawn there- 
fore from this circumstance, that our 
Lord offered this prayer in the open 
air, as Webster and Wilkinson think, 
in some part of the road between the 
city walls and the brook Cedron, along 
the banks of which they might have to 
walk some distance, before they came 
to the ford or bridge. Alford remarks 
that our Lord lifted up his eyes, but not 
his hands, " for ho prays not here as a 
suppliant, but as an Intercessor and a 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XVII. 



407 



High Priest, standing between earth 
and heaven." And said. The Evan- 
gelist no doubt has here recorded the 
very words used by our Lord on this 
occasion. Father. The first great word 
in the prayer, bringing out the ineffable 
union which subsisted between the Fa- 
ther and Son, and disclosing the foun- 
dation of that holy confidence which he 
reposed in God, that he would himself 
be glorified, and that all his followers 
would be sanctified with him and be 
made partakers of his glory. It is 
worthy of notice, that he does not say 
our Father, for God was his Father in 
a sense which could not be shared by 
his disciples; nor my Father, for this 
would represent him as praying for 
himself apart from his disciples, as in 
Matt. 2G : 39, 42, "but simply Father, 
that Great Name in which all the mys- 
tery of Redemption is summed up." 
Alford. The hour in which he was to 
offer himself up as a sacrifice for sin, 
and to enter upon those dreadful suf- 
ferings which were to precede his glori- 
fication at the right hand of God. Is 
come, not absolutely but virtually pres- 
ent. His earthly ministry Avas now 
ended. He had pronounced his fare- 
well address to his disciples, and noth- 
ing remained but for him to be led as 
a lamb to the sacrifice. The words in- 
dicate the readiness of Jesus to enter 
upon this work of expiation for sin. 
The voluntary devotion of God's Eter- 
nal Son to this service, had been made 
in the counsels of eternity, and now he 
reminds the Father that the hour of hu- 
man redemption has come, and as it 
were incites Him to exact the payment, 
which as man's surety he was to make 
by laving down his own life a ransom 
for sin. There is a moral sublimity in 
this readiness of self-devotion, which 
has elsewhere no parallel. Glorify thy 
Son. As his exaltation was to be ef- 
fected by his death, reference is not had 
here to his essential and underived 
glory, but to that to which he was ex- 
alted as God-man, and Mediator. It 
would deprive it of its high signifi- 
«ancy, to limit this request of our Lord, 
to the signal tokens of divine favor 
which attended his crucifixion, although 



these are not to be regarded apart from 
the exaltation upon which he was soon 
to enter. The reference is mainly to 
that state of glory to which he was to 
be exalted at God's right hand, as Head 
over all things, and as the final Judge 
of the quick and the dead (Eph. 1 : 22 ; 
2 Tim. 4:1). The glorification here 
spoken of, was the consummation of all 
his preparatory work of suffering and 
death in behalf of fallen man. In this 
great petition, there is not only an ac- 
quiescence in his Father's will, as in his 
subsequent hour of agony in the gar- 
den, when he closed his earnest suppli- 
cations by saying, "not my will but 
thine be done ;" but there is a full and 
cheerful offering of himself to death, a 
presentation of himself to receive the 
stroke of justice, which was to be in- 
flicted upon him in the compact of re- 
demption, before he could enter upon 
the glorification here referred to. There 
is in these words, as in the preceding 
clause, " Father the hour is come," a 
holy incitement to action, indicative 
of the fervor and self-devotion of our 
blessed Redeemer in this crisis of the 
world's redemption. Tliy So)i. This 
is the correlative of Father, and brings 
out at the very commencement of the 
prayer, the peculiar relation which sub- 
sists between the Father and Son. In 
v. 5, it is glorify thou me, the objective 
form of address giving place to the sub- 
jective, which is more direct and im- 
pressibly tender. That thy Son also 
may glorify Thee, in submitting cheer- 
fully and fully to Thy will, and by his 
death making a full display of all the 
divine attributes concerned in the work 
of human redemption. The purposes 
of God's saving grace, were all mani- 
fested in the death of His Son, by which 
eternal life was communicated to man- 
kind. This result is here made depend- 
ent on the glorification of the Son, be- 
cause the sufferings and death of Christ, 
through which that state of exaltation 
was to be reached, were the means by 
which the Father was to be known and 
adored by lost men. But how could 
this reciprocal glorification of the Fa- 
ther and Son take place, if either of 
them were less than infinite? What 



408 



JOHN. 



[A. D. S3. 



2 b As thou hast given him 
power over all flesh, that he 
should give eternal life to as 
many c as thou hast given him. 

&Da. 7:14; Mt. 11:27; &2S: 18;ch. 3:35& 5 

27 : 1 Co. 15 : 25, 27 ; Phi. 2 : 10 ; He. 2 : 8. 

c Ver. 6, 9,24;cb. 6:37. 

dls. 53:11; Je. 9:24. 



presumption and even blasphemy would 
it have been in the Son, to speak in 
such a connection of glorifying the Fa- 
ther, if he were less than his coequal? 
So Stier: "What creature could stand 
before his Creator and say, glorify Thou 
me, that I may glorify Thee?" The 
glorification here spoken of, is not that 
which man bestows upon his Creator by 
obedience to His will ; but it is the same 
in kind, as that of which the Son is the 
subject, and is the giving back to Him 
the same meed of honor, glory, and 
power, which the Son had himself re- 
ceived from the Father. But this re- 
ciprocation of glory, which so conclu- 
sively proves the supreme divinity of the 
Son, from the utter impossibility that, a 
finite or created intelligence could thus 
give back the same amount and kind of 
glory as he received, is the inevitable 
consequence of the essential unity of 
the Father and Son, the glory of the 
one being necessarily that also of the 
other. Thus are we conducted in the 
very opening of this sublime prayer, to 
the mysterious unity of the Father and 
Son, which is the great foundation upon 
which all that follows is based. If Je- 
sus Christ be not the coequal of the Fa- 
ther and supremely divine, this Avhole 
prayer is nothing else than an unmean- 
ing and blasphemous rhapsody. 

2. Our blessed Lord having expressed 
his readiness to enter upon the work of 
expiation, for which he came into the 
world, and by which both He and the 
Father were to be glorified, now recurs 
to the promise, that power was to be 
bestowed upon him to give life to all who 
had been given him in the covenant of 
redemption. As thou hast (in accord- 
ance with thy promise) given power, &c. 
This covenanted bestowal of universal 
power, is here advanced as a reason, 
why the glorification of the Son should 



3 And d this is life eternal, 
that they might know thee * the 
only true God, and Jesus Christ, 
1 whom thou hast sent. 

el Co. 8:4; 1 Th. 1 : 9. 

/Ch. 3:34; & 5: 80, 37; & 6: 29, 57; &7:29; 

& 10 : 36 ; & 11 : 42. 



be perfected, as prayed for in v. 1. 
The power here referred to is not that 
which he possessed in his essential di- 
vinity, but that to which he lays claim 
in his Mediatorial capacity. All flesh 
comprises here the whole human race, 
which is to be made subject to the Re- 
deemer's rule, either by the voluntary 
acknowledgment of his rightful author- 
ity, or compelled thereto, when He shall 
come in the glory of His Father to judge 
mankind and give to all their final 
award. Alford would comprise in this 
term, "not only all mankind, but all 
that has life, all that is subject to death, 
all that is cursed on account of sin." 
This may be included (see Rom. 8 : 22), 
but it needs no argument to prove that 
mankind, as sunk in sin and misery, and 
the objects of God's wrath, until recon- 
ciled to him through the death of his 
Son, are principally if not solely referred 
to. That he should give, &c. This shows 
the purpose of the delegated power and 
authority of the Son. It was that eter- 
nal life might be bestowed upon all 
those, who had been given to him in the 
covenant of redemption. This accords 
with the great declaration of the design 
for which the Son had been sent into 
the world, made by our Lord to Nico- 
demus (3 : 16, 17). Eternal life. See 
N. on Matt. 19:16. See also John 3 : 
15, where this life in its highest sense, 
as denoting eternal happiness, and not 
mere continuance of existence, is prom- 
ised as the result of faith in Jesus 
Christ, the Saviour of men. This prin- 
ciple of eternal life is communicated 
to the soul in the present life, by faith 
in Christ, and is consummated in the 
full enjoyment of God's favor in the 
world to come. As many as thou hast 
given Mm in the covenant of redemp- 
tion. It will be seen in what follows, 
how much prominence is given in this 



A. D. 38.] 



CHAPTER XVII. 



409 



prayer of Jesus, to the fact that a 
definite number have been given to 
Him, as his peculiar inheritance and 
reward. 

3. Our Lord here expands the pre- 
ceding sentiment by defining eternal life, 
and revealing the only way in which it 
may be attained. This verse is in a 
manner parenthetical, and is evidently 
spoken for the benefit of those for 
whom this intercessory prayer was of- 
fered, that they might be under no mis- 
apprehension as to the nature of this 
heavenly gift, to confer which upon 
men, all power had been given to the 
Son (v. 2). It will be seen that the lan- 
guage of this as well as other portions 
of the chapter, is that of colloquy 
rather than of prayer. Our Lord con- 
verses with the Father, as one who 
meets Him on equal terms, and has no 
other than an official subjection to Him. 
2'his (i. e. that which is asserted in the 
next clause) is life eternal. The way or 
means of attaining this blessing is not 
here alone or principally referred to, 
but that in which it essentially consists, 
namely, the true, living knowledge of 
God and Jesus Christ whom he had 
sent. This the world in its unregener- 
ate state possessed not (10 : 3), and it 
was to lead men to this knowledge, that 
our Lord condescended to humble him- 
self to the lowest condition of human- 
ity. " This saying may serve to explain 
what knowledge means in Scripture (2 
Cor. 8 : 2, 3 ; 13 : 12 ; Gal. 4 : 9). Not 
apprehension, imagination, thinking in 
cold speculation, or false mysticism, nor 
is it belief as mere admission and cre- 
dence, but a living conscious possession 
of fellowship with Him. To know God 
— the highest thing possible to the 
creature, or for which the creature was 
formed ! When that is perfect, the life 
is consummate." Stier. The only true 
God, not the God of truth, or one 
whose statements are to be received as 
absolutely true, although this is implied 
in the term. The words have a higher 
sense, the true God, as opposed to the 
false gods which were worshipped by 
so great a portion of mankind, at that 
period and since. God is to be known 
as the great and incomprehensible Je- 
Vol. III.— 18 



hovah, possessed of all those infinite at- 
tributes, which render him worthy of 
the love and adoration of every intelli- 
gent being. In order to avoid the ap- 
pearance of inferiority to God, which 
the position here assigned to Christ 
would seem to indicate, the Latin Fa- 
thers constructed the sentence thus : 
might know thee the only true God, and 
Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent, 
(also) as the only true God. Chrysos- 
tom to avoid this construction which 
the sentence evidently cannot bear, 
included Jesus Christ in the phrase, 
only true God. But it weakens the 
proof of our Lord's divinity, to resort 
to such questionable if not unwarrant- 
able liberties with the laws of sound 
interpretation. There are texts in 
abundance from which this great article 
in our creed can be proved, without 
pressing into service those of doubtful 
import, or torturing them to give a tes- 
timony other than what lies upon their 
face as the true and obvious sense. The 
fact that eternal life is here declared to 
consist in the knowledge of the true 
God and Jesus Christ, is of itself suf- 
ficient to prove that he was no created 
or inferior being. Stier with his usual 
vividness of conception, and affluence 
of language, among other excellent ob- 
servations, says that, u as neither the 
Archangel Gabriel or Michael could 
present himself before the throne of 
his Creator, with the words which pre- 
cede and which follow these — Glorify 
me, that I may glorify Thee ! I have 
glorified Thee, and now glorify Thou 
me ! — no more could he presume on 
such a juxtaposition as is found here in 
v. 3." So Olshausen well remarks, "the 
juxtaposition of God and Christ adopted 
here, can only be appropriate on the 
supposition that Christ himself is of 
Divine nature, and thus as God bears 
life in himself. Every one feels that it 
cannot be said, under any condition : 
'this is life eternal to know God and 
Abraham or Moses.' " There is a fel- 
lowship of honor and dignity asserted 
of the Father and Son, which runs 
through the whole prayer, as well as 
the preceding discourse, and which ren- 
ders the proof of the supreme divinity 



410 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



4 g I have glorified thee on the 
earth : h I have finished the work 

which thou gavest me to do. 

5 And now, Father, glorify 

!7Ch. 13:31; &14:13. 
A Oh. 4:34; & 5:36; & 9: 3; & 13: 30. 

of Christ wholly independent of any- 
single passage or mere verbal state- 
ment. 

But not only has this passage been 
pressed beyond measure to furnish direct 
and positive evidence of our Lord's 
supreme divinity, it has been seized 
upon by another class of interpreters, 
to prove the very opposite of this. 
They contend for this as the true trans- 
lation: and Jesus (to be the) Christ 
whom thou hast sent. But this would 
require the article in the original before 
Christ, and therefore cannot be received 
as the true translation. J. M. Faber trans- 
lates it : and Jesus Christ to be he whom 
thou hast sent ; Stolz : Jesus Christ as 
thy Sent One. This latter is also 
Liicke's translation, and is the favorite 
rendering of all, who would make Je- 
sus Christ to be no more than a man 
sent by God. Some have supposed 
that the use of the name Jesus Christ, 
by our Lord himself, is proof that this 
verse is an interpolation of John him- 
self. But this is an unwarrantable in- 
ference, and is as Be Wette well says, 
" an offence against historical proprie- 
ty." It is much more probable that the 
use of this name by our Lord himself, on 
so solemn an occasion as this, may have 
been the reason for its adoption by his 
disciples after his ascension. "They 
speak of him as he spoke of himself 
before God — this was the Spirit's sug- 
gestion to their minds." Stier. The 
name Jesus Christ, is one of high and 
heavenly import. Br. Schauffier re- 
marks : " In saying ' that they might 
know Jesus Christ whom thou hast 
sent,' Jesus said, 'that they might 
know Him who is Jehovah their Saviour, 
and the anointed King and High Friest 
of His own people.' " 

4. In this and the verse following, 
our Lord refers specifically to the three 
great periods of his preexistcnt glory 
with the Father (v. 5 end) ; of his condi- 



thou me with thine own self with 
the glory k which I had with thee 
before the world was. 

iGh. 14 : 31 ;& 15 j 10. 

7c Ch. 1:1,2; & 10 : 30 ; & 14 : 9 ; Phi. 2 : G : 
Col. 1 : 15, 17 ; He. 1 : 3, 10. 

tion of humiliation on earth (I have 
glorified thee on the earth) ; and of his 
future exaltation at the right hand of 
God (and now glorify thou me, &c). / 
have glorified — 1 have finished ; literally, 
/glorified — I finished, which Winer re- 
fers to our Lord's past acts, viewed as 
filling only one point of time past, as 
simply a past event. I glorified in my 
whole past life, &c. But it is prefera- 
ble to take the tense in a proleptic 
sense, inasmuch as our Lord could not 
say that he had finished his work, until 
after his suffering and death on the 
cross. This whole prayer is anticipa- 
tory of his heavenly mediation. Wrapt 
in divine ecstasy, he takes full posses- 
sion of the joy which was set before 
him, and speaks of his work as already 
finished. This manifests his unshaken 
purpose to undergo the bodily and men- 
tal suiferings, which in the garden and 
upon the cross awaited him. The ref- 
erence then in / have glorified thee, is 
not only to the days of his ministry, 
which were now ended, but to his obe- 
dience to the death of the cross, which 
in the proleptic style of this prayer is 
regarded as already past, although in 
reality yet to be undergone. This ref- 
erence both to his ministerial life and 
his passion, is repeated in the next clause 
I have finished ; (literally, finished, 
brought to a full close) the work, which 
serves also to explain in what sense he 
had glorified God on earth. The word 
work, is here employed generically for 
the whole work of his ministry, includ- 
ing, as has been remarked, also his 
death on the cross, and its attendant 
sufferings. Which thou gavest me to 
do. In the very midst of utterances 
which he could only make, as the 
coequal with the Father and possessed 
of supreme divinity, our Lord makes 
constant reference also to his official 
subordination, as one sent of the Father 
(vs. 8, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25), and as having 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVII. 



411 



a definite service given him to execute. 
See vs. 11, 12, 22, 24. 

5. This verse corresponds to the pre- 
ceding, as a kind of antithesis. Our 
Lord had completed his service. His 
obedience was now to receive its stipu- 
lated reward. The glorification for 
which he now prays, is not the mere 
reciprocation of love, but is to be re- 
garded in the light of a stipulated re- 
ward for a definite service. Me, not 
the Son, as in v. 1, the grandeur of 
the relation between Father and Son 
with which the prayer begins, now giv- 
ing place to the more direct and tender 
personality of / and Thou. The pro- 
noun me, refers here to our Lord in his 
incarnate state. He prays that as Me- 
diator, he may take upon himself the 
same glory with which he had been in- 
vested from eternity with the Father. 
The collocation of the words in the 
original, are very striking and emphatic ; 
and now glorify me, thou, Father, &c. 
With thine oxen self. Our English pre- 
position with, denoting mere accom- 
paniment, gives a very inadequate ren- 
dering of the original, which signifies 
the closest proximity and fellowship be- 
tween the divine Persons here referred 
to. Sec Ns. on 1 : 20. Webster and Wil- 
kinson, who have paid scholarly regard 
to the force of the prepositions, para- 
phrase it, with thyself, as thy fellow. 
The pronoun thine own self, adds still 
greater force to the expression, for it 
limits the glory of the Son here spoken 
of to that of the Father, in contradis- 
tinction to that of any created being. 
The implication is, that the glory of the 
highest created intelligence falls infinite- 
ly short of that which the Son possessed 
previous to his incarnation, and to the 
full enjoyment of which in his glorified 
humanity, he now prays to be raised. 
With the (/lory. In the interpretation 
of language having reference to a theme 
so mysterious and sublime, every word 
must be carefully weighed and" taken 
in its precise sense. The English pro- 
noun with, in this clause has no corre- 
sponding preposition in the original, al- 
though the relation which it expresses, 
is denoted by the construction of the 
word glory, as the means or manner of 



the glorification referred to. This word 
is therefore used here of all the circum- 
stances of glory, which invested the Son 
of God in his preexistent state before his 
incarnation. This divine majesty in all 
its fulness of glory, was now to be re- 
sumed by Jesus in his exaltation as the 
Saviour of men. Which I had with 
thee, &c. This clause shows that the 
glory to which the God-man was to bo 
exalted, was not at all inferior to that, 
which as the Divine Logos, He had pos- 
sessed from eternity. It was the same 
— for such is the force of the article in 
the original — glory with which He had 
before been invested, which was to in- 
vest him now. There was however this 
great difference, that his preexistent 
glory, like that of the Father, for aught 
we know, may have been incommunica- 
ble to men (see 1:18); while that of 
the God-man stands forth fully revealed 
(1 : 14; 2 Thess. 1 : 10); and filling the 
souls of his chosen ones with ever in- 
creasing admiration and rapture. Which 
I had, i. c. originally possessed. " He 
does not say, which I received; he al- 
ways had it, and never began to have 
it." Bengel. With thee. This is par- 
allel with the preceding clause with 
thine own self, and by the repetition of 
the idea in a slightly varied form, 
gives great emphasis to his community 
of glory with the Father. At the same 
time, it teaches, as docs the former 
phrase of which it is essentially the rep- 
etition, the distinct personality of the 
Son, as opposed to the heretical doc- 
trine, that the Logos before the creation 
Of the universe, resided in the divine 
mind as a power or energy, waiting for 
the great period of its active develop- 
ment in the creation of the universe. 
This passage is directly opposed to such 
a view, for the glorified state or condi- 
tion of the Son was not in but with the 
Father. These words, although in the 
original somewhat removed from the 
verb, are rightly constructed in our 
version with had. The word world, in 
this clause refers to the whole universe 
of mind and matter, and thus the " be- 
fore, " reaches back to that period in 
the everlasting agcr*, when the Triune 
Godhead alone existed. This absolute- 



412 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33 



6 ? I have manifested thy name 
unto the men "'which thou gavest 

l Ver. 26 ; Ps. 22 : 22. 

m Yer. 2, 9, 11 ; ch. 6 : 37, 39 ; & 10 : 29; & 15 : 

19. 

ly forbids any conception of Jesus as a 
created being, for had he been such, 
he would have belonged to the world, 
the cosmos, and could with no propriety 
or truth have spoken of himself, as en- 
joying a glory with God, before the uni- 
verse was. The sentiment corresponds 
with that in 1 : 3 ; for if all things (em- 
braced here in the icorldov cosmos) were 
made by him, his existence must have 
been prior to that of any created being, 
which leads us to the same great doc- 
trine of his eternal and uncreated being, 
as that to which Ave are irresistibly con- 
ducted by the present passage. 

6. From the consideration of the es- 
sential glory which was His before the 
worlds were, and to which as God-man 
he is again to be exalted, and which 
therefore in his subordinate state or 
condition as Messiah, he with perfect 
consistency prays for, our Lord now 
turns his thoughts upon those who in 
the compact of redemption were to be 
the subjects of his renewing grace. 
Alford says that, "this verse particular- 
izes v. 4, and forms the transition to 
the intercessory prayer." I have mani- 
fested (i. e. showed openly, made a full 
display of) thy name. The tense here, 
as in v. 4, has its proper and perhaps 
better translation as the indefinite past, 
i" manifested, the stand-point of our 
Lord by anticipation, being after the 
completion of his earthly labors and 
sufferings. The word name, here as 
elsewhere refers to God, not so much 
in reference to His proper name Jeho- 
vah, as to His essential being and attri- 
butes, which are known only to us as they 
have been revealed bv Jesus Christ (see 
Ns. on 1:18; Matt, 6 : 9). The being 
and attributes of God had been revealed 
in the Old Testament, but yet not in 
that richness and fulness, especially in 
regard to His purposes of redeeming 
love, as in the New Testament by Christ 
himself. Hence the reference in the 
men which thou gavest me, is primarily 



me out of the world : thine they 
were, and thou gavest them me ; 
and they have kept thy word. 



to the disciples, who had enjoyed his 
personal instructions ; but as they were 
representative men, the whole body of 
believers are also included in the words. 
Wliich thou gavest me out of the world. 
The gift here spoken of is that to which 
reference has been frequently made (see 
6 : 37, 44, 45), as provided for in the 
economical counsels of the Divine Three, 
and in pursuance of which, a definite 
number were to be drawn to the Son, 
and donated to him, as the reward or 
recompense of his Mediatorial work. 
It is a mystery of grace and love far 
beyond our comprehension, but should 
be received, like all other high and 
sublime truths, with the most ready 
and unwavering belief, leaving it with 
God to vindicate Himself from the false 
and impious charges of favoritism, 
which originate in pride, unbelief, and 
a total misconception of the scheme of 
redemption as revealed in His Word. 
The verb gavest, in the best editions, is 
the perfect, hast given, but the aoristic 
historical tense suits better the general 
recapitulation of our Lord's past acts in 
his progress towards the final result, 
and conforms to the tense of the verb 
have finished ; literally, finished (see N. 
above). Out of the world. The refer- 
ence here is to the world of mankind, 
the unbelieving world, a sense which 
the word has onward in this prayer, 
until v. 24, where it has again as in v. 
5, the enlarged and general sense of 
the universe. The preposition rendered 
out of, is the one in Greek, which signi- 
fies a removal from the interior of a 
thing, and expresses the fact that the 
disciples were among the unregenerate, 
until made the subjects of Christ's elec- 
tive grace. Thine they were in the pur- 
pose of redemption, even while they 
were yet of the world (see vs. 14, 16). 
This does not deny, as He Wette thinks, 
that all men previous to their conver- 
sion are the children of Satan. It 
teaches simply that those who have 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVII. 



413 



7 Now they have known that 



been given to Christ in the compact of 
redemption, belong also to the Father, 
through the love which unites the 
Father and Son. The Father therefore 
not only in accordance with the cove- 
nant entered into with the Son, but 
also through His own everlasting love 
for the elect, will not fail to draw them 
to the Son as his peculiar inheritance. 
They must have belonged to the Father, 
else they could not have been given to the 
Son ; and for our Lord to have said that 
they were his as all mankind are simply 
by creation, would have been so un- 
meaning an assertion in such a connec- 
tion, that we cannot suppose for a mo- 
ment this to have been the intended 
sense. Alford refers these words thine 
tlieij ivcre, to the fact that they were Is- 
raelites — Thy people before; not only 
outwardly, but Israelites indeed (1 : 48), 
and thus prepared to receive Christ. 
But this docs not reach the full and 
blessed import of the passage, which 
has reference to the covenanted inheri- 
tance of Jesus Christ, known, deter- 
mined, and provided for, before the 
foundation of the world. The prepara- 
tion of heart by which Nathanael and 
others, were ready to receive and ac- 
knowledge Jesus as the Messiah, was as 
much a part of the drawing of the 
Father to Christ, of those whom His 
elective grace had already marked as 
His own people, as their subsequent de- 
votion to Christ, when he actually 
called them to his outward service. 
On this general subject see vs. 9, 10 ; 
Acts 18:10; Eph. 1:4-6. And thou 
gavest them me, is an emphatic repeti- 
tion of which thou gavest me, in the 
preceding member. They have kept 
(see N. on 14:21, 23, 24; 15:10) thy 
word, in which they have been instruct- 
ed by thy Son Jesus Christ. This ref- 
erence to the doctrines and precepts of 
the Gospel as the Father's Word, is in 
perfect harmony with the official sub- 
ordination of the Son to the Father, 
which throughout this discourse and 
prayer is kept so prominently before 
the mind. Stier, who refers this whole 



all things whatsoever thou hast 
given me are of thee. 

passage to the goodness and prepara- 
tion of heart to receive the Messiah, 
which characterized the apostles before 
their introduction to Jesus, takes thy 
word in the sense of the Old Testament 
ordinances, in which Zecharias and oth- 
ers who were looking for the Deliver- 
ance of Israel, walked blameless before 
the Lord. See Luke 1 : 6. But as I 
have remarked^ this is too low and re- 
stricted a view to take of the passage, 
which refers to the fulfilment of the 
Father's covenant pledge made in the 
counsels of eternity to the Son, in 
drawing around him in love and obedi- 
ence the disciples, who are here the 
representatives of all who are brought 
to Christ by the drawings of the Father's 
love. That reference in thy word, is 
had to the Gospel revelation, is clearly 
indicated also by the tense have kept, 
which connects the completed action 
with the time present to the speaker. 
Hence it cannot in any way be referred 
to an observance of the Mosaic ordi- 
nances, before the disciples had any 
personal knowledge of Jesus. 

1. The adverb now, brings the time 
referred to, down to the present mo- 
ment of the speaker, and shows that 
the word spoken of in the preceding 
verse, was not the Mosaic ritual, but 
the living gospel of Jesus Christ. They 
have known is emphatic, they asstcredly 
know. This is not to be taken, how- 
ever, in such an absolute sense, as to 
preclude their growth and progress in 
the knowledge of divine things, under 
the teachings and superintendence of 
the promised Spirit. But the simple 
assertion is that they had reached, at 
this time, the most unclouded convic- 
tion that Jesus was the Messiah, and 
that his words were to be received and 
obeyed, as those of one who gave the 
highest evidence that he had been sent 
of God. All things whatsoever, are to 
be referred to both the words and works 
of our Lord. These were harmonious 
in their testimony to his divine mission, 
and together formed the very highest 
evidence of his Messiahship. Thou hast 



414 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



8 For I have given unto them 
the words " which thou gavest me ; 
and they have received them, 
and have known surely that I 
came out from thee, and they 

nCh. 8: 28; & 12: 49; & 14: 10. 

o Ver. 25 ; cli. 16 : 2T, 30. 

given me. Our Lord was constant in 
the affirmation that his doctrines were 
not his, but those of the Father who 
sent him (see 1 : 16), and that his works 
were also given him to do, from the 
same divine source. See 5 : 36 ; 9:4; 
10: 25. Are oft/tee, i. e. are of divine 
origin. In this verse our Lord reaffirms, 
that his works and doctrines are those 
which his Father gave him to make 
manifest, and that this great truth is 
now fully believed in by his disciples. 

8. This verse confirms and expands 
the sentiment of the preceding one. 
The fidelity with which the Son made 
known to men, the doctrines which 
he had received from the Father, is 
here adduced as the reason for the 
profound conviction of the disciples 
that his words and works were of divine 
origin. The word rendered for, would 
have indicated more clearly the connec- 
tion, had it been traslated inasmuch as. 
The words and works of Jesus are both 
referred to in v. 7, but inasmuch as 
faith has reference principally to that 
which is spoken, ivords are here substi- 
tuted for the more general term there 
made use of. But even here we would 
not exclude the idea of the works of 
Jesus, which were so stupendous, as to 
render it impossible to believe that he 
was other than what he professed to 
be, a messenger sent from God. I have 
given unto them the toords, &c, is there- 
fore the same as to say, that he had 
fully declared to them the gracious pur- 
poses of the Father, in sending His Son 
to die for men, and in giving eternal life 
to all who believe in him. This of 
course includes as a foundation doctrine, 
the mysteries of the Incarnation, and 
the Trinity. Which thou gavest me, 
in order that I should reveal them unto 
men. Have received them in faith and 
love. No one can suppose that a mere 



have believed that thou didst 
send me. 

9 I pray for them : p I pray 
not for the world, but for them 
which thou hast given me ; for 
they are thine. 

p 1 John 5 : 19. 



intellectual reception of the truth of 
the Gospel is here referred to. The 
adverb surely (i. e. to a certainty), im- 
parts additional emphasis to the verb 
as here repeated from v. 7. Alford re- 
marks, that the fact of his having come 
from the Father (I came out from thee ; 
or better, / came forth from thee), is 
more a matter of conviction from in- 
ference (see 3 : 2), and hence is referred 
to by the have known ; whereas in the 
words thou didst send me, denoting the 
other side of the same truth, the act of 
the Father unseen by us is more a mat- 
ter of pure faith, and the verb is there- 
fore changed to have believed. Our 
Lord by the word surely, characterizes 
their knowledge as of a higher type than 
the we know of Nicodemus, at the time 
when he visited Jesus in the earlier 
days of his ministry. His knowledge 
had doubtless undergone much trans- 
formation, in regard to the object of 
Christ's mission and the spirituality of 
his kingdom, since his first interview 
with Jesus by night. 

9. Stier remarks that here begins the 
fulfilment of what our Lord had prom- 
ised in Matt. 10 : 32, as well as in John 
14: 16. I pray for them, i. e. my inter- 
cession is respecting them. The prepo- 
sition for, would have been more liter- 
ally and perhaps better translated con- 
cerning. The world, i. e. the unbeliev- 
ing world. See N. on v. 6. The sim- 
ple sentiment, which is here after the 
manner of John expressed positively 
and negatively, is that the world in its 
state of unbelief and rebellion against 
God, is not included in the intercessory 
prayer which he is now offering. This 
does not however imply any decree of 
exclusion, by which they who are of 
the world are debarred from salvation 
by Christ. The idea is simply, that the 
intercessory prayer of Jesus embraces 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVII. 



415 



10 And all mine are thine, and 
qCh. 16:15. 



those only who are the actual subjects of 
his redeeming love. It cannot be denied, 
however, that his omniscient eye ran 
down the ages of time, and took in at 
one comprehensive glance, not only his 
disciples who then surrounded him, but 
also all those " who should believe on 
him through their word" (v. 20). These 
constituted the great company of be- 
lievers who were not of the world, hav- 
ing been given him of the Father. In 
the whole prayer, this great company 
of believers are placed in strong anti- 
thesis to the world of unbelievers. If 
it be asked in what category the icorld, 
in vs. 21, 23, is to be placed, I would 
reply, that if the belief there spoken of 
be genuine and evangelical, and more 
than an intellectual concession of the di- 
vinity of the Christian religion, it is evi- 
dent on the very face of the passage, that 
the expression icorld, must then be em- 
ployed — according to a common figure 
of speech, by which the whole is put 
for the part — for those who previously 
to their conversion were a part of the 
unbelieving world. So we speak of 
evangelizing the world and bringing it 
under the dominion of Christ, not imply- 
ing thereby, that every person in the 
world will be converted, but that great 
numbers will be brought therefrom, who 
will submit themselves to Jesus as their 
rightful King and Lord. If vs. 21, 23, 
refer to a saving belief in Christ, and 
no such discrimination in sense be af- 
fixed to the term world, it follows as an 
inevitable consequence, that the whole 
world including every individual is to 
be brought to a belief in Christ, as the 
result of the love union with God and 
one another, which is here the object of 
our Lord's intercession. This is con- 
trary to the teachings of other portions 
of God's word, and of the historical 
experience of the church from the days 
of the apostles, to the present time. 
It will be seen, however, in the com- 
ments made on vs. 21, 23, that saving 
faith is not there referred to, and hence 
there is to be no departure Avhatever 
from the usual sense in which the term 



q thine are mine ; and I am glori- 
fied in them. 

icorld, is employed in this prayer, as em- 
bracing those who are incorrigibly and 
finally impenitent. It will suffice here to 
repeat, that our Lord is to be regarded 
as expressly denying that he prays for 
the unbelieving world — by which is 
meant those of mankind not included 
in the covenant of redemption — in any 
such sense, as he prays for his disciples 
and those who were afterwards to be- 
come believers in him, through the 
word which they and their successors 
were to preach. To attach any other 
sense to the declaration here so posi- 
tively and plainly made, would deprive 
it of all significancy. The sentiment is 
rendered still more plain and impres- 
sive, by the repetition of them, with the 
explanatory clause, which thou hast 
given me, which restricts the interces- 
sory prayer to those to whom he was 
to give eternal life, in the exercise of 
the power with which he had been en- 
dowed by the Father (see v. 2). For 
they are thine. The tense is changed 
to the present from v. 6-, in order to 
conform to the tense of the principal 
verb pray. In v. 6, it stands connected 
with verbs expressive of past time, / 
have manifested — thougavest — have kept, 
and hence by the law of grammatical 
sequence was put in the imperfect tense. 
There is therefore no ground for the 
distinction made by Alford, that in v. 
6, reference was had to their preparation 
for Christ (for the refutation of which 
view, see N. on that verse), while here 
the idea is one of abiding in Him. In 
both instances, reference is had to the 
peculiar ownership which the Father 
has of all those, whom in the covenant 
of redemption He has given to the 
Son, and whom in due time He will 
draw to him (see 6 : 44), as his promised 
reward and inheritance (6 : 37). The 
clause for they are thine, is appended, 
therefore, as the reason or ground, why 
the Father could give them to the Son 
in the compact of redemption. They 
were His, not simply as His creatures, 
but in the embrace of His everlasting 
love. Some may prefer to construct this 



416 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



11 r And now I am no more in 
the world, but these are in the 
world, and I come to thee. Holy 



r Ch. 13:1;&16:2S. 
« 1 Pe. 1 : 5 ; Jude 1. 



clause with the verb pray, as a reason 
for the performance of that act. This 
construction yields a good and consist- 
ent sense, but that verb is too remote 
for such a reference, and the corres- 
pondence with v. 6, of which this is a 
manifest repetition, is not so well pre- 
served. 

10. In this verse we are led back to 
16 : 15, where the Son claims to be pos- 
sessor of all things which belong to the 
Father. But here the sentiment is re- 
ciprocally stated, which brings out in 
stronger relief the supreme divinity of 
the Son, and his absolute equality with 
the Father. Luther says : " It would 
not have been so much if He had 
simply said, ' All that which is Mine, is 
Thine. For every one may say that all 
he has is God's. But he inverts the 
words, and says, 'AH that which is 
Thine is Mine.' No creature could thus 
speak before God." The English ver- 
sion, all mine are thine, would seem to 
refer to persons alone ; but the neuter 
of the original includes not only per- 
sons but things, in the widest sense, as 
Alford remarks, even the Godhead it- 
self. But in its connection with the 
preceding verse, as illustrative and con- 
firmatory of the clause they are thine, 
its immediate reference is to persons. 
The great idea of the passage is, that 
such absolute and perfect copartnership 
subsists between the Father and Son, 
that whatever attributes or prerogatives 
belong to the one, belong equally to the 
other ; and hence the Son, in this prayer 
for blessings to be conferred upon his 
followers, only takes from that fulness of 
love, grace, and power, which belongs 
equally to himself with the Father. 
And all mine, &c. This verse is gram- 
matically coordinate Avith the preceding, 
the argument being progressive, while 
at the same time it confirms and illus- 
trates the foregoing assertion. And I 
am glorified in them. This is the infer- 



Father, s keep through thine own 
name those whom thou hast given 
me, 'that they may be one. " as we 
are. 

tY. 21, &c. uCh. 10:30. 



ence. The Son as am§11 as the Father, 
is to be glorified in those who are thus 
made the subjects of his renewing grace ; 
for no glory can be conferred upon the 
one, which by the essential unity of 
their being is not conferred in equal 
degree upon the other. In them, not by 
them, as some interpret. The pronoun 
is to be referred in sense to the all in 
the preceding clause, which, although 
neuter in order to embrace in the largest 
sense the whole universe of mind and 
matter, even to the attributes and pre- 
rogative of the Godhead, yet has pri- 
mary reference, as has been said, to the 
persons included in the everlasting 
covenant of redemption. The idea con- 
tained in the phrase in them, from which 
Christ's glory is to result, is the same as 
that spoken of in v. 23, and refers to 
the divine life which his indwelling 
presence communicates to the soul, as 
the sap from the vine runs through and 
gives life to all the branches, with which 
it is in organic connection. This is 
spoken by way of anticipation of that 
which has its full development in the 
times of the Spirit's dispensation, inas- 
much as our Lord's glorification in the 
redeemed, can properly commence only 
after his death, resurrection, and ascen- 
sion. 

11. This verse commences with a 
statement of the ground of the petition, 
which our Lord offers for his disciples. 
He was soon to leave the world, where- 
in they were yet to remain for a season. 
Bereft of his personal counsel and 
guidance, they would need the protect- 
ing power and presence of the Father, 
and this he prays for in the clause Holy 
Father, &c, which is the first direct re- 
quest which he makes for them in this 
prayer. It will be seen that from this 
verse onward, direct petitions in behalf 
of his disciples are mingled with much 
that is colloquial, as one addresses an 
equal. The phrase in the world, has 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVII. 



417 



here its usual signification of place, 
and does not denote, as Alford teaches, 
the state of men in the flesh. Our Lord 
was speaking of his bodily and not his 
spiritual presence. But is neither a 
literal or felicitous rendering of the 
conjunction, which is and, denoting the 
cotemporaneous state of the Lord and 
his disciples. The double conjunction 
in such simultaneous clauses may be 
rendered both — and, or the first maybe 
translated as an adverb of time, while I 
am no longer in the world, these are, &c. 
Union and companionship are here in- 
dicated, notwithstanding a temporary 
separation of person. It is as though 
our Lord had said : ' I and these my fol- 
lowers are soon to be separated, and 
therefore they will need the presence 
and support of the Father.' The clause 
I come to thee, explains more fully the 
first one, in which the simple statement 
is, that he is soon to leave the world. 
The pronoun /, which was omitted in 
the first clause, is here emphatically ex- 
pressed, to give prominence to its anti- 
thesis with these, referring to his disci- 
ples, and the demonstrative force of 
which is as though he had pointed to 
them, or made some gesture with his 
hand, indicating that he had special refer- 
ence to them in this prayer. I come, has 
reference to the immediate future, and 
hence am coming, would be the more 
accurate translation. Holy Father, i. e. 
adorable, revered Father. Keep. This 
verb literally signifies, to have an eye 
upon, with the . idea of protection ; 
hence to watch over, take care of, pro- 
tect. The personal absence of Jesus is 
urged as a reason, why the Father 
should now watch over the disciples, 
protect them from all evil, and give them 
the spirit of love and harmony. TJirough 
thine own name ; literally, in thine own 
name, the idea being that of dwelling 
or abiding in the protective power of 
God, indicated here by his name, which 
is expressive of all the divine attributes. 
Winer says that, " in, in the phrase 
living or being in God, indicates with 
greater force and precision, than could 
be done by through or by, one's taking 
root, as it were in the strength of God." 
The idea doubtless originated in dwell- 
. III.— 18* 



ing in fortresses and places of strength, 
secure from the attacks of enemies. 
Compare 2 Sam. 22 : 2, 3 ; Ps. 18 : 2. 
This idea conforms to the meaning of 
the verb, to watch over with the idea of 
protection. Those whom thou hast given 
me. The recurrence of this circumlo- 
cution for disciples, followers, founded 
on the covenant of redemption, shows 
what importance Jesus attached to that 
great transaction. TJiat they may be 
one, i. e. united in the bonds of broth- 
erly love. As we are ; literally, as we. 
The essential or hypostatical union of 
the Father and Son is not here referred 
to, but the love union which subsisted 
between the persons of the Godhead. 
We need not fear that we weaken the 
argument for the essential unity of the 
Father and Son, by this interpretation. 
We should run the hazard of doing this, 
if we sought to claim for the union of 
Christ's people with one another, a 
sameness of nature with that mysterious, 
ineffable, essential union which makes 
the persons of the Sacred Three, an 
absolute and veritable Unity. In no 
such sense are God's people united to- 
gether. Their bond of union is one of 
love (see N. on v. 21), and this they at- 
tain to and preserve, by their indwell- 
ing in peace and love in the name of 
the Father, as here prayed for by our 
blessed Lord. In no manner whatever 
can the people of God be said to be 
one with one another, in precisely the 
same essential relation, as that which 
subsists between the persons of the 
Trinity. This passage cannot therefore 
be advanced as furnishing any clue, by 
which the nature of the Trinity of the 
Godhead may be understood and ex- 
plained. That is too deep a mystery 
for the human intellect to fathom. The 
fact only has been revealed to us. With 
that let us for the present be content. 
What revelations may be made to us, 
when we shall see " face to face," we 
know not ; but that the illimitable fu- 
ture will unfold to us much that in our 
present state of imperfection is hidden 
from view, is scriptural, reasonable, and 
delightful to contemplate. 

12. The sentiment of this verse is 
closely connected with the preceding 



418 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



12 While I was with them in 
the world. X I kept them in thy 
name : those that thou gavest me 
I have kept, and y none of them 

x Ch. 6 : 39 ; & 10 : 28 ; He. 2 : 13. 
yCh. 1S:0;1 Jo. 2:19. 

context. Our Lord there prays, that 
the Father would watch over his dis- 
ciples, whom he was now about to leave. 
In this verse he shows how indispen- 
sable would be this divine care and 
oversight, inasmuch as he whose pro- 
tecting care they had hitherto expe- 
rienced, was about to withdraw from 
them his personal presence. There is 
a concealed argument a fortiori. If 
they stood in need of God's protecting 
care, while Jesus was personally with 
them, much more would its continuance 
be necessary, now that they were to be 
left by him, to carry on the great work 
of evangelizing men. It was remarked 
by Cyril, that this bold expression in 
which the Lord makes his own and the 
Father's keeping one, must rest upon 
their equal power and dignity. " Who, 
leaving this world, could thus speak to 
God, but he who is One with him ? " 
Stier. While I was. The word is pro- 
leptically used, as he had not yet actu- 
ally left them. It will be seen that the 
great stand point of this prayer, is by 
way of anticipation, after his glorifica- 
tion had commenced. I kept them; 
literally, was keeping them, the imper- 
fect tense denoting continuous past 
action, being employed. In thy name. 
Sec N. on v. 11. Again, those that thou 
gavest me, to denote those who were 
made his own in the covenant of re- 
demption. See N. on v. 11. / have 
kept ; literally, / kept, the time of the 
prayer by prolepsis, being after his de- 
parture from earth. The verb is not 
the one employed in the first clause, 
nor in v. 11, but one which expresses 
more strongly the idea of defence and 
protection, the literal signification being 
to guard with unremitted vigilance. But 
the son of perdition, i. e. Judas who is 
thus styled, because of his great sin 
and its awful consequences. The same 
appellation is given in 2 Thess. 2 : 3, 
to Antichrist, who like Judas the type 



is lost, 2 but the son of perdition ; 
a that the scripture might be ful- 
filled. 



sCh. G:T0: &13:18. 
oPs. 109:8; Ac. 1:20. 



of all apostasy, was devoted to destruc- 
tion. A question here arises, whether 
this scripture teaches that Judas was in- 
cluded in those whom the Father had 
given to the Son. Alford contends that 
he was, and makes this passage to 
show " (l)the sense in whiefa the phrase 
whom thou gavest me, is to be taken in 
the previous instances of its occur- 
rence ; and (2) that of such persons it is 
true, that there is for them no irresist- 
ible grace, no 'keeping in God's name,' 
independently of their ' keeping God's 
word' (v. 6), which Judas did not do. 
But how can we include Judas among 
the true disciples of Christ, in face of 
such scriptures as 6 : 37, 39, 40, where 
it is expressly asserted, that none of 
those given the Son by the Father shall 
finally perish ? See also 10 : 27-29, 
where the same truth is declared in 
another form of words, and in another 
connection; also 18: 9, on which see 
Note. As to what Alford terms irre- 
sistible grace, we have no trouble in be- 
lieving, that the Father can make sure 
the fulfilment of his covenant with the 
Son, without interfering in the least 
with the laws of free agency, or ren- 
dering it physically impossible for them 
to violate his law, apostatize from truth, 
and thus be lost forever. Although 
men are not saved, as if they were ma- 
chines to be wound up and run accord- 
ing to fixed and necessary physical 
laws ; they are nevertheless so drawn 
to Christ by the almighty grace of God 
(6 : 44), and so kept by His power 
through faith unto salvation (1 Pet. 1 : 
5), that it becomes morally certain that 
all who have been given to his Son in 
the covenant of redemption, will be 
guarded and kept from apostasy, and 
made happy at last in the presence of 
Dim to whom they rightfully belong. 
There is no reference in the whole Gos- 
pel to Judas, which can lead us to sup- 
pose, that he was ever included in the 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVII. 



419 



13 And now come I to thee ; 
and these things I speak in the 
•world, that they might have my 
joy fulfilled in themselves. • 

14 6 1 have given them thy 

l Ver. 8. 

number of those who -were given to 
Christ, and by his apostasy furnishing 
proof, as Alford asserts, that the grace 
of God is not gratia irresistibilis, irre- 
sistible grace." Have not I chosen you 
twelve (to the apostleship) and one of 
you is a devil? " See X. on 6 : 70. He 
was a child of the devil from the very 
beginning, and his love for Jesus was 
only pretended and fictitious, like that 
which his prototype Ahithophel enter- 
tained for David. The word but, has 
here evidently the sense of but only ; 
and the son of perdition, is the subject 
of the exception here made, because he 
had been chosen to the apostleship alike 
with the other disciples. So Doddridge 
well paraphrases : " unless it be counted 
as a kind of exception, that the son of 
perdition perishes by his iniquity ; that 
wretched creature, who in a lower 
sense was indeed given to me, but never 
like the rest, was taken under my 
special care, but, is left to fall into de- 
served ruin, that the scripture might be 
fulfilled," &c. The original translated 
but, is the same as that employed in 
Luke 4: 26, 27 (on which see Note), 
where save or saving, does not imply 
that the Sidonian widow belonged to 
the widows of Israel, or that Naaman 
was an Israelitish leper. That the 
scripture might be fulfilled. This pre- 
diction and its certain accomplishment, 
did not necessitate Judas to commit his 
great sin of betraying Christ. He was 
not the son of perdition, in order that 
the scripture which spoke of his apos- 
tasy might be fulfilled, as Alford main- 
tains, but in his voluntary choice to do 
this great sin, he was fulfilling the pur- 
pose of God, as expressed in the scrip- 
ture. See X. on 13 : 18 ; Acts 1 : 20. 

13. And novj I come to thee, is a repe- 
tition of the words but I come to thee, 
in v. 11. But the connection here re- 
fers it by way of antithesis, to the 



word ; c and the world hath hated 
them, because they are not of the 
world, d even as I am not of the 
world, 



c Ch. 15:18, 19; 1 Jo. 3:13. 
dCh. 8:23; ver. 16. 



clause in v. 12, while I was with them, 
&c, the sense being as Alford well re- 
marks, "but I shall be here to keep 
them no more. And therefore I pray 
this prayer in their hearing," kc. Some 
may prefer with Webster and Wilkin- 
son, to regard it as resumptive from v. 
11, and introductory to the words which 
follow. There is no essential difference 
: in these modes of construction. Iltese 
'< things I speak, refers to the words of 
; the prayer, which he was then offering 
| in the hearing of his disciples for their 
comfort and instruction (Stier). In the 
■■ world, i. e. while I am here below with 
j them. It is implied that Christ's inter- 
cession for bis people will be continued 
after his glorification, but doubtless in 
i terms suited to the essential unity and 
; mode of communion which subsists be- 
| tween the Persons of the Trinity. That 
(here in order that) they might have my 
joy (i. e. the joy which is mine to give) 
j fulfilled in themselves. The sentiment 
is that our Lord uttered this intercessory 
prayer in the hearing of his disciples, 
j in order that it might be a source of 
: comfort in the dark hour of trial and 
afiliction to them, and also to all who 
! should come after them (v. 20), and be 
j inheritors of like promises and blessings. 
14. In this verse our Lord indicates 
I the means by which he had kept his 
disciples while he was with them. He 
j had given them the divine word, and 
: as a necessary consequence, it had pro- 
i voked the hostility of the world, and 
they would therefore stand in preemi- 
I nent need of protection from above. 
The verb have given, refers to the com- 
munications which our Lord had made 
from time to time, of the will of the Fa- 
ther and the nature of the Messianic 
Kingdom which he had come to estab- 
lish. It was the message of the Father 
which he came to make known to men, 
and hence he calls the gospel, thy word. 



420 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



15 I pray not that thou should- 
est take them out of the world, 

The tense of the verb hath hated, re- 
quires the translation hated, reference 
being had proleptically to the effect 
upon the world of the preached gospel, 
in exciting its hatred and opposition. 
The great work of preaching the gos- 
pel, is more specifically pointed out in 
v. 18. This hatred of the world in view 
of the truth which the disciples were 
commissioned to make known, had al- 
ready begun to manifest itself, and 
would by no means be abated after his 
departure. See Acts 4 : 24-30. Be- 
cause they are not, &c. This denotes 
the reason why they were the object of 
the world's hatred. The sentiment is 
repeated from v. 19, on which see Note. 
Are not of this world, i. e. are not pos- 
sessed of its spirit or actuated by its 
principles and motives of action. Thus 
through his regenerating love they were 
like Christ. This is the point of the 
similitude ; but it must not be pressed 
to teach that believers are not originally 
of the world, because Christ was not so, 
or that the same absolute freedom from 
worldly influences characterized their 
walk and conversation, which was true 
of him. "During the whole time of 
his being in the world, he had not been 
for one moment of the world — but had 
been elevated above it in kingly maj- 
esty. But in the case of his disciples, 
the same world which hateth them hath 
still something of its own within their 
hearts." Stier. 

15. This verse implies a conflict, not 
only between his disciples and the 
world without, in consequence of the 
self-denying doctrines of the cross 
which they were commissioned to dis- 
seminate, and the zeal with Avhich they 
should seek to make converts to Chris- 
tianity, but also with the w r orld within, 
according as indwelling sin gave force 
to the temptations by which they might 
be beset. It was necessary, therefore, 
that they should remain for a time on 
earth, to proclaim the gospel message 
to their fellow-men, and prove them- 
selves his true followers by overcoming 



"but 'that thou shouldest keep 
them from the evil. 

«Mt. 6:13; Ga. 1: 4; 2 Th. 3: 3; Uo. 5: IS- 

the world, in its insidious and perse- 
vering efforts to draw them away from 
Christ. Our Lord therefore does not 
pray for their removal from this world, 
but rather that while discharging their 
official duties as ministers of his word, 
they may be kept from evil and be en- 
abled to pursue the conflict both exter- 
nal and internal, until they should be 
crowned with victory. Such I conceive 
to be the connection of this verse with 
the preceding one, which at first sight 
seems somewhat obscure. That thou 
shotddest take them, &c, refers to an 
immediate removal from earth, and is 
intended to teach the disciples, that the 
work of the ministry to wdiich they had 
been called, forbade their accompanying 
or immediately following him to the 
place of blessedness wdiither he was 
about to go. Out of the world refers 
here to removal by death, a sense dif- 
ferent from that which these words 
have in v. 6, on which see Note. Away 
from the world, would perhaps have 
been a better translation ; the term 
world, here meaning the world of living 
men, the earth as the abode of man- 
kind. Shotddest keep is the same verb 
thus translated in v. 11, on which see 
Note. Followed as here by from the 
evil, it has the additional idea of sepa- 
ration from the world, so as not to be 
overcome by its opposition, or enticed 
from truth and duty by its sinful and 
alluring pleasures. There can be little 
doubt that the evil, is in the neuter gen- 
der, and is put generically for every 
form of evil by which the good are be- 
set in this sinful world. Such is the 
view of Doddridge, Stier, Tholuck, 01- 
shausen, Bloomfield, Webster and Wil- 
kinson. On the other hand, Beza, 
Bengel, De Wette, and Alford, inter- 
pret it as a masculine, the Evil One. 
But there is an obvious correspondence 
between the world in the first clause, 
and the evil in the second, which de- 
mands that both shall be taken in the 
same general sense. This is strength- 
ened by the fact, that the same prepo- 



A.D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVII. 



421 



16 f They are not of the world, 
even as I am not of the world. 

/Yer. 14. 
g Ch. 15 : 8 ; Ac. 15 : 9 ; Ep. 5 : 26 ; 1 Pe. 1 : 22. 

sition is employed in both clauses, sig- 
nifying out of or from the interior of 
the icorld or evil, which shows that the 
latter expression is not to be referred 
to evil, as a personality, but as a com- 
prehensive term for the icorld of sin, in 
w hich his disciples were yet for a time 
to dwell. Olshausen's remark is just, 
that had the Evil One been referred to, 
it would have been more definitely ex- 
pressed by the prince of this world — a 
designation, which our Lord had thrice 
before employed of Satan the great foe 
and seducer of man. See 12:31; 14 : 
30; 16 : 11. The substitution of evil, 
in the second member for world, is to 
be referred to the use of that word in 
the first clause, not so much in the sense 
of an evil world, as the abode of the 
living, which men are to leave at the 
hour of death. Hence evil in the sec- 
ond clause, is a varied expression for 
the icorld regarded as sinful, and op- 
posed to Christ and all his followers. 

16. This verse fully discloses the rea- 
son, why the Father's protecting care 
was to be exercised over the disciples 
after the departure of their Lord. 
Tliey are not of the icorld, is repeated 
from v. 14. It was there introduced 
as the ground of the world's hatred ; 
here it stands as the reason why Jesus 
invoked for them his Father's protect- 
ing care. Their virtual separation from 
the world, even while yet living in it, 
which was there implied, is rendered, 
in this reiteration of the words, they 
are not of the icorld, more prominent 
and impressive. Their separation from 
the world was in one sense as real, as 
though they had been removed out of it. 
There had been wrought in them a 
radical and entire change of the govern- 
ing motives and principles of action, 
which regulate and control the men of 
this world. As Jesus had been actuated 
by a supreme desire to do his Father's 
will, so they were influenced by a like 
heavenly spirit and temper. In this 
they were diametrically opposed to the 



17 9 Sanctify them through thy 
truth : h thy word is truth. 

h 2 Sa. 7 : 28 ; Ps. 119 : 142, 151 ; ch. 8 : 40 . 



world. Their whole life and purpose 
was an antagonism of good with evil, 
truth with error, light with darkness, 
which rendered it; necessary, that in or- 
der to their final victory, his disciples 
should be watched over and protected 
by the Father. 

17. Our Lord here prays for the pos- 
itive blessing which was negatively in- 
voked in v. 15. To keep from evil, in 
its strictest sense, is to sanctify, inas- 
much as sanctification is freedom from 
moral defilement. Here then we have 
the great idea of our Lord's interces- 
sory prayer for his people. It is that 
they may be cleansed from every moral 
impurity, and thus rendered meet for 
the inheritance of the saints in heaven. 
The meaning which some would here 
affix to the verb sanctify, as designat- 
ing an external separation or consecra- 
tion to the apostolical office, is not for 
a moment to be entertained as the true 
one. The very meaning of the verb, 
which, when employed of persons, in 
contradistinction to vessels appropriated 
to a ceremonial use, signifies to cleanse 
or purify in a moral sense, forbids our 
attaching to the word as here employed, 
the low sense of an external consecra- 
tion to the work of the ministry. The 
connection also is opposed to this inter- 
pretation. As has been remarked, sanc- 
tify them, is but the positive form of 
expression for, shouldest keep them from 
the evil, in v. 15. This requires a far 
deeper sense to be attached to sanctify, 
than a mere external separation or set- 
ting apart to an official work. This 
meaning is sought to be confirmed by 
the use of the word sanctify, in v. 19. 
But a reference to the comment on that 
verse will show, that consecration to the 
Mediatorial office is not what is there 
specifically meant, but a state of perfect 
holiness, by which our Lord had ren- 
dered himself an acceptable sacrifice to 
divine justice. Even if external conse- 
cration were the only or principal thing 
referred to in v. 19, it would be unsafe 



422 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



18 { As thou hast sent me into 



i Ch. 20 : 21. 



to argue, that such is the meaning of 
the word in this place, applied as it is 
to poor sinful men. In the one case, it 
is consecration to the service of God by 
renunciation of sin, and faith in a cru- 
cified Saviour. In the other, it is the 
spontaneous self-consecration of One 
who knew no sin, and whose chief 
and only delight was to do the will 
of his Father. 

Prof. Stuart renders the passage, con- 
secrate them for the truth, i. e. for the 
word or doctrine given to them to 
preach to the world. But as has been 
said, this does not accord with the gen- 
eral usage of the word in the New Tes- 
tament, nor with the context, which 
happily is so plain in its demands, that 
no one can well mistake the sense re- 
quired in this verse. Through thy truth, 
is literally in thy truth. The word of 
God was to be the element in which 
this sanctifying process was to go on ; 
or as Stier terms it, the medium of 
sanctification. Dr. Schauffier well ex- 
presses it: " They who are true disci- 
ples of Christ live and move in the word 
of truth as their element. They breathe 
it. This element, like all the means of 
grace has a sanctifying tendency." 
Some prefer the instrumental sense of 
the Greek preposition, by thy truth. I 
cannot see any essential difference in 
these two modes of exposition. If 
truth is regarded as the sanctifying ele- 
ment in which the believer lives, it is 
surely a medium or means of sanctifica- 
tion. The one implies the other. Thy 
word is truth. This refers the truth 
here spoken of to the word of God, the 
Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- 
ment. The truth, as embodied in the 
inspired word of God, when received 
into the soul and rendered efficacious 
and active by the indwelling Spirit, will 
always be productive of holiness. An 
illustration of the powerful agency of 
truth as contained in the revealed will 
of God, to sanctify the soul and estab- 
lish it in the worship and service of God, 
is found in the 119th Psalm, where 



the world, even so have I also 
sent them into the world. 

this great truth. Compare Acts 20 : 32. 
Prof. Lewis (Divine Human in the 
Scriptures, p. 3) refers the toord here 
spoken of, to the Incarnate Word, " the 
true sanctifying Word, by union to 
which men become holy, separate from 
the world, united to God, and partakers 
of the divine nature." But while this 
is in the highest sense true, I have 
much doubt whether our Lord as the 
eternal Logos, would say, "the Logos 
which is thine." Besides, the living 
word of inspiration, that is, the revela- 
tion which the Incarnate Logos made 
of God, is the divinely appointed means 
of sanctification. 

18. The necessity of their sanctifica- 
tion in and through the word, is here 
shown from the mission on which they 
were about to be sent. As thou hast 
sent — even so have I also sent. The 
translation in accordance with the tense 
of the original is, as thou didst send — 
even so I also sent. This shows the pro- 
leptic character of the verse. Aliord 
says that it received its fulfilment in 
20 : 21. It need not be repeated, that 
many portions of the prayer are offered 
from a stand-point of time, after his 
resurrection and glorification. As thou 
hast sent me, &c. Christ was sent in- 
to the world on a mission of redeeming 
love. See 3: 16, 1*7. Even so have I 
also, &c. To extend the knowledge of 
salvation through a Redeemer, was the 
object of the apostles 1 mission. Hence 
there was an obvious similarity between 
the purpose for which they were or- 
dained and sent forth, and that for 
which Christ came into this world. 
God the Father had sent the Son ; the 
Son, by virtue of the Mediatorial au- 
thority with which he was invested, sent 
his disciples to carry on and perfect the 
work which he had begun. As he had 
met with hatred and opposition in his 
divine mission, so they would be the 
subjects of the world's scorn and hatred, 
as he had formerly said (15 : 20). This 
evinced the necessity of their sanctifi- 
cation through the indwelling word of 
God ; and the verse contains therefore 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTEK XVII. 



423 



19 And * for their sakes I sanc- 



k 1 Co. 1 : 2, 



1 Th. 4 : 7 : He. 10 : 10. 



the reason for the petition offered up 
in the preceding verse. Those exposi- 
tors who interpret v. 17, of a consecra- 
tion of the disciples to their missionary 
work, find in this verse simply the ob- 
ject for which they were thus conse- 
crated, namely, the promulgation of 
truth. This was the great purpose for 
which he had come into the world, and 
was to be the special work to which he 
prays that they may be now solemnly 
set apart. All this is true, but is rather 
implied than directly asserted in the 
words, sanctify them in thy truth. 

19. This verse has occasioned much 
difficulty, chiefly from the attempt to 
reconcile the sanctification of Jesus 
here spoken of, and the sanctification 
of the believer which follows as the in- 
tended result. The difficulty would 
mostly disappear, if instead of assign- 
ing to the verb sanctify, in v. 17, the 
comparatively low signification of ex- 
ternal consecration to the apostolic 
work, we should give it the sense of a 
moral cleansing or personal sanctifica- 
tion which unquestionably belongs to it, 
if regard be had to the primary mean- 
ing of the word, or the important con- 
nection in which it stands. The differ- 
ence between this act, as predicated of 
him and of his disciples, is twofold ; (1) he 
sanctifies himself; (2) this very self-sanc- 
tification proves his personal holiness 
from the very beginning. But the disci- 
ples were sanctified by the Spirit of 
God, operating upon their heart in and 
by the truth, and this by a like moral 
necessity proves them to have been 
previously defiled by sin. Why then 
did Christ speak of self-sanctification ? 
Evidently to show that his eminent fit- 
ness for his Mediatorial office, consisted 
in his perfect holiness, and that his dis- 
ciples could be prepared for their work, 
only by the answer to his prayer in 
v. 17, for their personal sanctification. 
He does not mean to say, that he at- 
tained to this state of sanctification by 
a process similar to that which consti- 
tutes the way and means of the believ- 
er's sanctification. The state of entire 



tifj myself, that they also might 
be sanctified through the truth. 

freedom from sin, which qualified him 
for the work of human redemption, is 
all that is intended to be expressed in 
the words / sanctify myself ; and this 
condition of holiness is assumed as 
necessary to give life and success to 
the ministry of the word, by the labors 
of those whom he had commissioned 
to promulgate it throughout the world. 
Webster and Wilkinson thus express 
the sense: "The Son of God was 
naturally and essentially holy ; yet he 
may be said to have made himself holy 
— to have purified himself — inasmuch 
as perfect holiness was necessary to the 
constitution of his character as the 
Sacrifice, the High Priest, the Advo- 
cate." See Heb. 9 : U ; 7 : 26, 27 ; 1 John 
2:1. It is a very low and erroneous 
view, to refer this great utterance to the 
mere act of Christ's consecration or of- 
ficial devotement to the work of human 
redemption. This is implied, however, 
in the design for which he thus sancti- 
fied himself, which was, that He might 
be the High Priest of his people, by 
having offered himself, through the 
eternal Spirit, without spot to God, to 
purge the consciences of his people, from 
dead works to serve the living God. Heb. 
9 : 14. For their sakes (or more literally, 
in their behalf), I sanctify, &c. refers to 
the whole work of Christ's ministry in 
its effect upon human salvation. He 
came into the world and offered himself 
a sacrifice without spot or blemish for 
human transgression. His sinless per- 
fection rendered his offering of himself 
in the sinner's stead acceptable to God. 
His intercessory gifts are all the result 
of his own personal dignity and worthi- 
ness. Indeed his whole official work 
and service, is embraced in this com- 
prehensive expression, / sanctify my- 
self The words for their sakes, are 
appended to denote the object or pur- 
pose of Christ's self-sanctification. The 
argument is, that inasmuch as he had 
sanctified himself, and by his voluntary 
and perfect self-devotement had pro- 
vided salvation for his people, they 
would stand in need of a like sr.nctifi- 



424 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



20 Neither pray I for these 
alone, hut for them also which 
shall believe on me through their 
word ; 

21 l That they all may be one ; 

cation through the truth, not only to 
become partakers themselves of the 
provisions of his love and mercy, but 
also to be the messengers of salvation 
to others. I sanctify, is what gramma- 
rians call the absolute present, compre- 
hending indefinite time, and referring 
to no particular moment when the ac- 
tion takes place. The mediatorial work 
of Christ, designated by this compre- 
hensive and expressive term of. self- 
sanctification, was then going on, and 
would not cease, until the end should 
come, referred to in 1 Cor. 15 : 24. That 
they also might be, &c. This was the 
great end or purpose of his self-sancti- 
fication and devotion to the work of 
redeeming love. Stier happily express- 
es it, " Christ sanctifies himself for all, 
that all may be capable of sanctifica- 
tion." Through the truth ; literally, in 
the truth. " See N. on v. 17. 

20. We now come to that portion 
of this prayer, which is so dear to all 
believers, inasmuch as it entitles them 
to all the privileges and blessings, which 
he had thus far prayed for with special 
reference to his disciples. Neither pray 
/(all these things) for these alone, i. e. 
the prayer which I offer for my disci- 
ples who are now with me, is not in- 
tended for them apart from others who 
shall believe on me. The words for 
these alone, are explained by 10 : 10, 
where our Lord refers to other sheep 
not of that fold ; and also by 11 : 52, on 
which see Note. The reference here is 
however more unmistakably comprehen- 
sive, and includes all of every age and 
nation, who should believe on him 
through the word first preached by the 
apostles. But for them also, &c. The 
persons here referred to, are believers 
in Jesus, through the preaching of those 
whom he commissioned and sent forth 
as ministers of the word (Luke 1 : 2). 
It would deprive this passage of its 
great and comprehensive significancy, 



as m thou, Father, art in me, and 
I in thee, that they also may be 
one in us : that the world may 
believe that thou hast sent me. 

I V. 11, 22, 23 ; ch. 10 : 16 ; Eo. 12 : 5 ; Ga. 3. 23- 
m Ch. 10:3S;&14:11. 

to limit it to believers of that age, or 
those who were converted by the per- 
sonal labors of the apostles. The great 
promise in Matt. 28 : 20, " Lo I am with 
you always even to the end of the 
world," proves beyond all question, 
that the preceding command, " Go ye 
therefore and teach all nations," is ad- 
dressed to all Christ's ministers down 
to the end of time. Through their 
word, is therefore to be taken in its 
most comprehensive sense, of the la- 
bors of all Christ's ministers in every 
age down to the end of time. The 
apostles are primarily referred to, but 
yet as representative men. This might 
have been inferred from the nature of 
that office to which they had been 
chosen; but our Lord has condescended 
for the instruction and encouragement 
of all his ministers in after times, and 
all who shall be gathered into his fold 
through their labors, to declare in the 
most unequivocal terms, that he em- 
braces all his followers in this prayer, 
and therefore he says, / pray not for 
these, &c. The words through their 
word, are to be connected with I have 
sent them into the world, in v. 18, show- 
ing the object of their mission, namely, 
to declare the word of his salvation to a 
sinful and perishing world. This pas- 
sage is valuable, as defining the true 
position of the preached word in all 
which pertains to the salvation of men. 
This is laid down and carried out at 
greater length, in the argument by 
which the apostle Paul establishes the 
fact, that "faith cometh by hearing, 
and hearing by the word of God." See 
Kom. 10 : 14-17. Stier, with his usual 
depth of exposition, says : " All faith in 
all ages comes through the word. This, 
on the one hand, maintains the doctrine 
of prevenient grace, the grace of Him 
who calls, as universal for the world, 
and as special for the individual, with- 
out which faith could not be spoken of 



A. D. 



CHAPTEPw XTII. 



425 



at all; -while, on the other har. ".. U 
needom of our own le- 
word, meant 

: ay of light and eonvi.-; 

21. It becomes i. ether 

rse is to be regarded as the object 
or purpose of the prayer, or as the re- 
sult of the thin g for. Both 

rail 
equally well the wants of the pass - 

s it as the object, not so 
much to I prax.. as to I pray for i 

The in yil 
fication in and through the truth made 
the Spirit, will he a unity 
e and action. This is undoubted- 
ly true, rt il is easy to see that this 

of believers, which is the res 
of their sanctification through the truth, 
may also be regarded in the light of a 
direct object of our Lord's interc 
prayer. The oneness of believers here 
spoken of. is not one of essence 

the unity of the Spirit, re- 
sulting from their being " one body, one 
one hope of the believer s call- 
ing, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 
one God and Father of all, who is 
above all, and through all, and in all ' ? 
(Eph. 4:4- It is referred to in 10 : 
' one fold and one shepherd," 
and also by the "fellowship with the 
;i and with his Son Jesus Christ," 
spoken of in 1 John 1:3. I: is the 
which breaks down the wall of 
d Jew and Gentile, and 
which places upon the same level the 
learned, the rich and 
| box, high and low, bond and free. It 
is the unity which brings into one 
great brotherhood all believers of every 
land and clime condition} 

and complexion. in age of the 

world's history to the end of time. All 
human distinctic: Sciences of 

education, all grades of knowledge and 
refinement, all diversities : . .ulition, 
from the monarch to the slave, are 
merged in this great principle of CI ris- 
tian lo~ sand "- bc as to rela- ! 

disappear and become of no ac- 
count whatever. This will be true on | 
ugh in consequence of in- 
... sin, which oftentimes inter- 
rupts the harmony of Christian feliow- 



' ship in the church below, will find its 
full :-.- ; in he 

It may be proper to remark, in order 
to prevent misconception of the true 
meaning and scope of this passage, that 
the unity here prayed for, does not im- 
I an absolute sameness of opinion 
on matters of religious faith and practice 
[ amor.: 3 followers. This is im- 

>Ie from the yery ... s.it tion of 
the human mind. There cannot but 
be a difference of opinion, even among 
the most earnest and sincere inquirers 
after truth, according as they investi- 
gate a tdei lifferent circum- 
stances, or variously affected by the 
force of prejudice or education. These 

nk of 
the imperfection of human reason, and 
the darkening influence of indwelling 
: wholly eradicated un- 
yes its earthly tenement, 
rncient to account for all those 
different shades of sentiment, enter- 
tained by good men in regard to the 

it.es and duties of Christi. 
There will probably be minor differ- 
of opinion among Christ's fol- 
g as the world shall en- 
dure. Noi - :-s the union for which 
Lord here prayer that si- 

should be kept when error is 
taught, or when a Christian brother 
stray. On the contrary, the 
? of this union, which is the love 
of Christ she I ..road in the heart, re- 
quires that error should always be op- 
i. and a warning voice : 

- use who inculcate it, even 
though they may be regarded as true 
disciples of Christ, and in the main 
- I and correct in all their doctrinal 
views. In like manner, the spirit of 
union requires tender and faithful deal- 
ing with a brother who has gone astray. 
A private rebuke or admonition may 
be attended with unpleasant circum- 
stances, however judiciously and kindly 
administered: but if the subject of re- 
buke be a child of God, it will be fol- 
lowed by the outpourings of confidence 
and love, and the spirit of union and 
harmony fully restored. It may be fur- 
ther remarked, in order to disencumber 
this subject from every thing which 



426 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



tends to destroy or impair the spirit of 
true Christian union, that it does not 
(3) require the surreuder of any essential 
point of belief, in order to effect a com- 
promise of doctrinal views, and thereby 
seek to remove all denominational dis- 
tinctions. We are commanded to "prove 
all things, and to hold fast that which 
is good;" and again to "hold fast the 
form of sound words in faith and love, 
which is in Christ Jesus." Union based 
upon the surrender of any essential 
evangelical doctrine, would be like the 
union of Pilate and Herod at the cruci- 
fixion of Jesus. The spirit of our Lord's 
petition is however aimed against those 
sectarian prejudices and animosities, 
those ecclesiastical strifes and divisions, 
those assumptions of prelatical superi- 
ority and exclusive church polity, which 
have so often brought dishonor upon 
the religion of Christ, and which must 
all disappear before the era of truth 
and righteousness, for which the disci- 
ples of Jesus arc laboring and praying, 
will be ushered in. 

As thou, Father, art in me, &c. This 
is the pattern of the union, which our 
Lord prayed to subsist amongst his fol- 
lowers. The terms clearly indicate, 
that it is a love union, and not one of 
essence, which is intended. The essen- 
tial union of the persons of the God- 
head, could not be expressed by the 
preposition in, in its literal sense. It 
would be a confusion of personality, 
not to speak of the absurdity of the 
idea, to interpret this passage as teach- 
ing, that there is an essential indwelling 
of the Persons of the Trinity in one 
another. Such is not the utterance of 
the great trinitarian passage 1 : 1, where 
the Logos is declared to be with God 
(see Note on the force of the Greek 
preposition), but not in God. All such 
passages therefore as speak of the mu- 
tual indwelling of the Persons of the 
Trinity, are to be referred to an indwell- 
ing of love, and not to one of essence. 
But the context also, as well as the pas- 
sage itself, shows that reference is not 
had to the essential union of the Divine 
Three. If a union of essence were in- 
tended, how could such a union ever 
prevail among Christians? Are they 



ever to be brought essentially and neces- 
sarily into a unity, like that which con- 
stitutes the Unity of the Godhead ? No 
one can believe this. The pattern then 
of the unity of believers, is the unity of 
love which subsists between the Persons 
of the Godhead. See N. on v. 11. 
As the Father and Son are one in love 
as well in essence, so believers are to 
be united in the bond of love, and thus 
show that they are possessed of the 
Spirit of Christ. 

That they also may be one in us. By 
the indwelling Spirit of God, believers 
attain to fellowship with the Father 
and his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1 : 3). 
This is the abiding in Christ's love, spo- 
ken of in 15 : 10. No essential or nu- 
merical unity is here intended, but only 
the unity with the Father and Son by the 
Holy Spirit working in believers, and pro- 
ducing the fruits of love and obedience. 
Stier finds in this clause a deepening 
advancement in the meaning of the 
words in us, referring to a further and 
more perfect unity. It is better, how- 
ever, to regard it as an emphatic repeti- 
tion of the first clause, the words in us, 
being added in consequence of the pat- 
tern union designated, in the clause, as 
thou, Father, &c, and also with refer- 
ence to what was asserted in v. 11 
(end). 

Tliat the world may believe, &c. This 
is not so much the purpose, as the re- 
sult of the unity among Christians here 
spoken of. Hence this clause should 
not be constructed in immediate de- 
pendence on I pray, understood from 
v. 20, but as denoting the fruit of 
the union among believers, which is 
the object of the prayer. That the 
world, is here the unbelieving world, 
exclusive of those who shall believe in 
Christ referred to in the latter part of v. 
20, there can be not the least doubt. 
The verb may believe, does not refer 
then to what is called evangelical faith, 
but to that which in theological language 
is denominated historical faith, or the 
assent of the understanding to the truth 
of Christianity, without any saving 
knowledge or practice of its duties 
and precepts. This is Calvin's view. 
Stier opposes this on the ground that 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVII. 



427 



22 And the glory which thou 
gavest nic I have given them ; 



Jesus would not thus reduce the mean- 
ing of this great word believe, so sa- 
cred throughout the prayer, and be- 
sides that an unsaving historical faith 
could not stand here as the object of 
Christ's desire. He therefore compares 
this expression with, "that the world 
might be saved in" (3 : 17), and " all men 
might believe' 1 (1 : 7), as denoting now at 
the end, his own desire and will that all 
the world might believe. Stier does not 
however teach that, as a fact, all or any 
of the unbelieving world here referred 
to will believe on Christ, but only that 
this should be regarded as the goal, 
however unattainable in itself, of all 
the efforts of the united love of his 
people. Alford goes still further, and 
includes in the world, some who are 
real believers, as may be seen by his 
paraphrase of the passage : " that this 
their testimony, being borne by them 
all, and in all ages, may continue to 
convince the world, so that many in 
the world may believe," &c. But how- 
he can elicit this meaning from the pas- 
sage, if the latter clause in v. 20, in- 
cludes all believers, it is hard to see. 
Nor is it clear how he can append as 
he does, "here our Lord certainly prays 
for the world" and urge this in proof 
of the correctness of his exposition of 
v. 9, that our Lord's declaration that 
he prayed not for the world, simply 
meant that he was not in that part of 
his prayer praying for the world, but 
for those who had already believed on 
him. It seems to me that this excel- 
lent expositor has not only mistaken 
the drift of the prayer in its two grand 
divisions, as first offered for his disci- 
ples, and then for those who should 
believe through their instrumentality — 
which latter expression embraces, as 
we have shown in Note on v. 20, all 
believers in every age to the end of 
time — but that he has overlooked the 
great meaning which the world has in 
this whole prayer, except in vs. 5, 
24, namely, the unbelieving world. 
Nothing seems clearer than, that a 



n that they may be one, even as 
we are one : 

n Ch. 14:20; 1 Jo. 1:3; & 3 : 24. 

strong and well-defined antithesis be- 
tween believers and the world, runs 
through the whole prayer — a great 
moral gulf, as impassable through the 
obstinate unbelief of the finally im- 
penitent, as that which in Hades sepa- 
rated Lazarus and Dives. 

22. The union of believers by the 
indwelling Spirit with the Father and 
Son from whom the Spirit proceeds, 
entitles them through grace to par- 
ticipate in the glory given to Christ ; 
for the reference is not here to the 
incommunicable glory of the divine 
nature of Christ. This glory imparted 
by Christ to believers, is that indwell- 
ing spiritual life, which manifests it- 
self in the unity of which he had just 
spoken, and which was to command 
the admiration and intellectual assent 
of the world itself to the divinity of 
Christianity. This declaration of our 
Lord, is confirmed by the whole his- 
tory of the church in its relation to 
an unbelieving world. Nothing has 
furnished such irrefutable evidence 
of the presence and power of Jesus, 
as the Son of God and Saviour of 
men, in the heart of believers, as 
the love union which has subsisted 
among his followers, despite the minor 
shades of difference, which as we have 
shown in N. on v. 21, result from the 
very constitution of the human mind. 
This sense then is to be regarded as 
an amplified explanation of the pre- 
ceding one, showing the peculiar glory 
of that unity, which was to produce 
such a profound conviction of the di- 
vine mission of Jesus. Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and Grotius, add as an 
element of this glory, the working of 
miracles, and other wonderful gifts of 
the apostles ; but it is a sufficient answer 
to this, that the whole body of believers, 
and not the apostles only, are here re- 
ferred to. Webster and Wilkinson ex- 
plain the glory here spoken of, as the 
means by which Christian unity was to 
be effected. If so, it must be inter- 
preted as equivalent to the gift of the 



428 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



23 I in them, and thou in me, 
that they may be made perfect- 
in one ; and that the world may 

o Col. 3 : 14. 



Spirit, and such is the opinion of these 
expositors. " What is meant is proba- 
bly the gift of the Holy Ghost, by 
which they -would be brought into the 
glorious fellowship of the Father and 
the Son, made sons of God, and one in 
Him (1 Pet. 4 : 14)." This in its gen- 
eral aspects is true, but we are hardly 
justifiable in making the glory given to 
the Son, and by him communicated to 
believers, to be the gift of the Spirit. 
I should rather regard the Spirit, as the 
medium through whom this peculiar 
gift was to be conferred upon believers, 
than as the gift itself. Which thou 
gavest me, as thy messenger to men. 
This shows clearly that our Lord possess- 
es an essential glory which is incommu- 
nicable, and which as Webster and Wil- 
kinson rightly say, "believers may be- 
hold (v. 24), but cannot share." / have 
given them. " The glory of Christ as the 
only begotten Son (1 : 14), full of grace 
and truth, by virtue of his exaltation and 
the unity of all believers in him through 
the Spirit, has become theirs (Eph. 1:18; 
2:6; Rom. 8:30); not yet fully, nor as 
it is his, but as each can receive and 
show it forth." Alford. I have given, is 
proleptically spoken for the perform- 
ance of the act after his own glorifica- 
tion. That they may be one, &c. This 
is the result of his communicated glory 
to believers. The hidden spiritual life 
which they possess through faith in 
him, and by which they become partak- 
ers of his glory, unites them all to him, 
as the branches are united to the vine ; 
and hence the outward development 
of this unity, is but a necessary conse- 
quence of this internal union with Christ, 
by which his glory as Mediator and Sa- 
viour of men becomes virtually, if not 
essentially, theirs. The train of thought 
then is simply this : Christ by his 
Spirit enters into and takes possession 
of the soul of the believer. In thus 
doing, he communicates the element of 
spiritual life, by uniting the soul to 
himself in a living union, so that his 



know that thou hast sent me, 
and hast loved them, as thou hast 
loved me. 



life and his glory become the posses- 
sion of the believer. This union with 
Christ, and participation in his glory, 
of necessity are productive of a like 
union of all believers with one another, 
so that they become one, even as the 
Father and Son are one. Even as we 
are one. Here again the love unity, 
and not the numerical and essential 
oneness of the Godhead, is referred to. 
See X. on v. 21. 

23. I in them, and thou in me, does 
not refer to such a mutual indwelling as 
to blend in confusion all individual per- 
sonality, but to an indwelling of love, 
an interpenetration of the same spirit, 
an entire unity of purpose, aim, desire, 
love, and every other emotion and 
affection (see X. on v. 27). This is the 
highest type of unity, and springs from 
the essential unity of the Sacred Three, 
although as above remarked (X. on v. 
21), it does not consist in that oneness 
of essence, which in the highest and 
most absolute sense makes the three 
Persons of the Godhead, OXE GOD. It 
is a moral unity, and not one of essence, 
and the reader cannot be too careful 
to keep this distinction ever before 
the mind, while reading this great pas- 
sage, in which our Lord prays, that 
Christians may be one, even as he and 
the Father are one. But while we 
should be careful not to become be- 
wildered by vain attempts to refer the 
indwelling of Christ in the soul of the 
believer, to one of essence, so that in a 
pantheistic sense, the soul itself be- 
comes a part of the Divine Mind ; we 
should, on the other hand, as carefully 
guard against interpreting this declara- 
tion I in them, and thou in me, as a 
mere figure of speech, referring to the 
relation of discipleship which all assume 
in taking the vows of Christ upon them, 
or the general care which as the objects 
of his love, Christ exercises over the 
church. In the beautiful and forcible 
language of Prof. Lewis (Divine Hu- 
man in the Scriptures, p. 319), "in the 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVII. 



429 



primitive Church it was a reality affect- 
ing every other aspect of Christian 
truth. Christ was in the Christian, as 
he was in the church his earthly body. 
It was no figure employed to represent 
a mere following or discipleship. His 
life was in their life. Hence his suffer- 
ings were their sufferings, his resur- 
rection not only the pledge but the 
ground of the new life then working 
in their souls, and destined eventually 
to quicken their mortal bodies ; and so 
his satisfaction to law was their satisfac- 
tion, his obedience their obedience, his 
righteousness their righteousness im- 
puted to them rightly, because it was 
really theirs as it was "really his. They 
were Christophori, Christ-bearers." This 
great truth may be summed up in a sin- 
gle sentence : it is Christ dwelling in 
the believer by his spiritual presence. 
Further than this we cannot go. All 
beyond is as impenetrable to human 
vision, as the indwelling of the Father 
in the Son, and the Son in the Father 
(v. 22). Its reality we cannot, must 
not doubt ; the nature of this mutual 
indwelling is beyond our comprehen- 
sion, save that in the light of other 
teachings of the Word of God, it is not 
such as to destroy or impair the per- 
sonality of the Sacred Three, or so to 
deify the soul, as to make true the 
pantheistic dreams, that it is a portion 
of the divine mind, which after death 
will return and be lost in the infiuite, 
from which for a season it has been 
dissevered. 

That they may be made perfect in one. 
Moral perfection is not here referred 
to, but a completeness and perfection 
of unity, according to the pattern of 
that which subsisted between the Fa- 
ther and Son. The words in one, would 
be more literally rendered into one, 
which implies motion and progress tow- 
ards the state of perfect unitv. See 1 
John 2 : 5 ; 4 : 12, 18 ; Eph. 4 : IS. That 
the world may know, &c. This is par- 
allel to that the icorld may believe, in 
v. 21, and is expressive of the same 
sentiment. The knowledge here re- 
ferred to, cannot be saving knowledge, 
for the reason given in X. on v. 21, 
against taking the faith there spoken 



of as true evangelical faith. Alford in 
consistency with his interpretation of 
the parallel clause in v. 21, refers may 
know, here to " that salutary knowledge 
by which from time to time the chil- 
dren of the world are by God called to 
become the children of light." But 
this, as I have said in N. on v. 21, 
would require the world, to be taken in 
the sense of those in it to whom this 
recognition proves " salutary," that 
is, true believers. Xot to speak of the 
unwarrantable license of thus arbitra- 
rily shifting the meaning of the word 
world, which as Prof. Crosby remarks, 
" is always Christ's enemy," so that it 
may signify the believing portion of 
mankind, such an exposition would 
make the persons referred to, in "all 
who shall believe on me through their 
word" (v. 20) i either to include a por- 
tion only of believers, which restriction 
is forbidden by the very language there 
employed; or if inclusive of the whole 
family of believers, to be repeated in 
the clauses that the world may believe, 
and that the world may know, which 
would reduce the whole declaration to 
an absurdity, inasmuch as it would 
make the unity of the whole family of 
believers prayed for in v. 20, to be the 
ground and impelling cause of their 
own belief and acknowledgment of 
Christ. Stier, in view of the absurdity 
of this mode of interpretation, says: 
" We reject at once all those explana- 
tions of the relations of believing and 
knowing, which assume the world to be 
those to be saved out of the world." 
There is but one consistent interpreta- 
tion, and that is with Calvin to refer 
the icorld here spoken of, to those who 
are unregenerate, but who are com- 
pelled by the Christian temper and 
union manifested by the disciples of 
Christ, to acknowledge the divinity of 
Christianity. This however is far from 
denying, that the godly walk and con- 
versation of the pious may be the 
means of bringing men to Christ in 
true love and faith. Such is undoubt- 
edly the fact, and is consonant with the 
word of God (see N. on Matt. 5 : 16), 
and with human observation and expe- 
rience. But those persons who are 



430 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



24 ? Father, I will that they 
also, whom thou hast given me, 
he with me where I am; that 
they may behold my glory, which 

y Ch. 12 : 26 ; & 14: 3 ; 1 Th. 4 : 17. 

thus converted, in the language and 
scope of this prayer, are included in 
the number spoken of in v. 20, and in 
the eye of Christ, as it glances through 
the whole future of the church on 
earth, are regarded as his own follow- 
ers, and are thus referred to. There is 
therefore nothing left in the world, but 
the unbelieving portion, who intellec- 
tually perceive and acknowledge the 
truth of Christianity, as acted out in 
the lives of its followers, but there stop 
and do not yield their hearts to Christ. 
Stier as in v. 21 refers this to the desire 
of Jesus, that the whole world, even the 
unbelieving portion, may come to the 
saving knowledge of his name: "He 
includes in his petition even that which 
will not be fulfilled; just according to 
the will of the Divine counsel, that all 
men might be saved, though all men 
are not." It is preferable, however, to 
make this clause the result of that per- 
fection of love among Christians, re- 
ferred to in the preceding clause. It is 
quite clear, that the world in the sense 
which it has in this chapter, does not 
share in the intercessory prayer here 
offered by Jesus. 

It may be remarked, that the very 
nature of the subject restricts the 
world, to that portion of it where the 
gospel of Christ has been preached, and 
men in greater or less numbers have 
been converted to its belief and heart- 
felt acknowledgment. TJiat thou hast 
sent we, is repeated from v. 21. The 
remaining clause, and hast loved them, 
&c, is an advance on the parallel sen- 
timent in v. 21. The evidence of the 
Father's love for believers, is here de- 
clared to be the great love which they 
manifest for one another, and the unity 
and harmony of purpose and aim, which 
pervades their life. This evinces their 
true discipleship, and adoption to the 
position and privileges of the sons of 
God, and by necessary consequence, 



thou hast given me : q for thou 
lovedst me before the foundation 
of the world. 

a Ver. 5. 

their being made partakers of the Fa- 
ther's love. 

24. Our Lord now looks onward to the 
final glorification of his followers with 
him in heaven. He had prayed for his 
disciples (vs. 9-19), and for all who 
should believe on them and the preach- 
ers of the word who should follow them 
(vs. 20-23), that they might be kept from 
all evil (v. 15), sanctified through the 
word (17), and made perfect in love (21- 
23). He now prays that after their work 
on earth shall be ended, they may be 
with him, and see his Mediatorial glory. 
The verb will, is not to be regarded as 
the expression of increased earnest- 
ness and desire, but of a right from 
his essential equality with the Father, 
as well as from the covenanted power 
supreme, which had been given him 
as Mediator both in heaven and in 
earth (Matt. 28 : 19), to order and de- 
cree the eternal happiness and compan- 
ionship with himself of all his followers. 
This shows that the verb pray, in vs. 9, 
15, 20, is to be taken in a modified 
sense ; for if our Lord had a right in the 
exercise of his supreme authority to 
will his disciples' presence with him in 
heaven, he had surely the right to will 
their protection from evil and union 
with one another, while they were on 
earth. But the divine and the human 
in Jesus most marvellously blend in this 
whole discourse and prayer, and vain is 
the effort so to separate them, as to 
predicate one assertion of his divinity, 
and another of his humanity. It is 
sufficient to know that it is the God- 
man, who is holding ineffable commun- 
ion with the Father ; and in our exposi- 
tion of the recorded words of the 
prayer, Ave would never forget that we 
are standing on holy ground. The 
reference in they also whom thou hast 
given me, is not to the apostles alone, 
but to all believers, the prayer from v. 
20, onward to the end, embracing in its 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVII. 



431 



25 righteous Father, r the 
world hath not known thee : but 
* I have known thee, and ' these 



r Ch. 15:21; & 16: a 



scope all Christ's followers. Also refers 
in sense to be with me, as opposed to 
their personal separation from him, while 
thev remained on earth. Wliom thou 
hast given me. The repetition of these 
words in this connection, shows beyond 
all question, that those who have been 
given to Christ in the covenant of re- 
demption, embrace all who shall even- 
tually be saved out of the world. The 
number is known only to the omniscient 
God ; but that it will constitute a vast 
majority of the human family taken in 
the aggregate, we have every warrant 
in the Scriptures for believing. Our 
blessed Lord shall see of the travail of 
his soul, and shall be satisfied (Isa. 53 : 
11). Compare also Rev. 7:9; 19: 6. 
Be with vie where Icon; literally, that 
where I am they also man be with me. 
In the phrase where 1 am, he refers to 
his state of exaltation in heaven. The 
sentiment of this verse harmonizes with 
14 : 2, 3, on which see Notes. That they 
may behold my glory, is to be construct- 
ed with be with me where I am, and not 
with I will, as is done by some exposi- 
tors. The verb see, in this connection 
has the idea also of partake. " No mere 
spectator could see this glory." Alford. 
Compare Rom. 8 : 17-39; 1 Cor. 13: 
12 ; 2 Cor. 3 : 18 ; 1 John 3 : 2. Which 
thou hast given me, refers to his Media- 
torial glory, his essential glory being 
that which can neither be given nor 
taken away. For thou lovedst me, &c. 
denotes the reason why the Father had 
given the Son such glory, as that refer- 
red to in the preceding context. It was 
the result of no capricious or arbitrary 
arrangement, for the sake of a mere 
manifestation of the Triune God in such 
a mystery and strangeness of relation ; 
but it was the expression of the Fa- 
ther's love for the Son, prearranged and 
determined in the counsels of eternity. 
Before the foundation, &c. See -N. on 
v. 5. This antedates the love here 
spoken of before the existence of any 



have known that thou hast sent 
me. 

sCh. 7:29; &S: 55: &10:15. 
ZYer. 8; ch. 16:27. 



created being, and refers it to the mutual 
love, which from eternity subsisted be- 
tween the Persons of the Godhead. 
The world has here the signification as- 
signed it in N. on v. 5. 

25. Righteous. "An appropriate 
epithet. He appeals to the righteous- 
ness of God against the evil world, and 
in favor of his people; see 16:10." 
Webster and Wilkinson. We may go 
further, and find a reason for the" use 
of this epithet, in the preeminent honor 
and acknowledgment of God's right- 
eousness, as displayed in the work of 
redemption. The righteousness of 
God is the great fundamental idea of 
the atonement, for love which disre- 
gards justice and right action, is no 
longer love but malevolence. God 
was righteous in giving up His Son 
an offering for sin (Hcb. 10: 18). He 
was righteous in bestowing upon his 
Son thus given up, the reward Of his 
obedience (G : 37-39). The final rejec- 
tion and condemnation of those who 
remain in unbelief and sin, must also 
be pronounced just, by the assembled 
universe at the great day of account. 
Tlie world hath not, &c. In the orig- 
inal we find the conjunction and, in the 
sense of while, making the two clauses 
simultaneous and coordinate. Some 
expositors make these clauses antithet- 
ic, and give to and, the sense of and 
yet, nevertheless. The world is the un- 
believing world, placed here in antithe- 
sis with/ and these, referring to Christ's 
followers, represented by the disciples, 
to whom the prayer now recurs after 
the more comprehensive range in vs. 
20-24. Hath not known, in a saving 
sense. TJie world, as antithetic to the 
disciples here specially referred to by 
the pronoun these, designates the un- 
believing portion of the Jewish nation. 
They had a theoretical or intellectual 
knowledge of God, but had no true 
conception of his spiritual nature and 
attributes. But as the disciples, both 



432 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



26 u And I have declared unto 
them thy name, and will declare 
it ; that the love ■ wherewith thou 

u Ver. 6 ; ch. 15 : 15. 

here and in vs. 6-19, represent the 
whole body of believers down to the end 
of time, — a fact confirmed and illustrat- 
ed by vs. 20-24, — so the Jewish cosmos 
or world, is put for the unbelieving 
world at large, a great portion of which 
in every age has remained in profound 
ignorance, even of the, name of the only 
living and true God. I have known thee. 
This shows in what sense we are to take 
the preceding hath not known thee, pred- 
icated of the world. There is a marked 
difference between this knowledge, and 
that spoken of in v. 23. This is the sav- 
ing knowledge of God ; that, the mere 
conviction of Christ's divine mission, or 
in other words, of the divine origin of 
Christianity. This knowledge may be 
attained to, and yet fall far short of 
the knowledge of God, which Jesus 
Christ and his disciples are here de- 
clared to possess. That thou hast sent 
me, in this connection implies the 
knowledge of God, as seen in the face 
of Jesus Christ, and hence is far in ad- 
vance of the intellectual conviction, 
which in v. 23, the world is said to 
have of the divine mission of Jesus. 
/ have known thee, in its deepest sense, 
is to be referred to the knowledge 
which the Son has of the Father as his 
coequal. Hence the knowledge that 
he had been sent of the Father, em- 
braces the great truth of his essential 
divinity ; for as Webster and Wilkinson 
remark, " his perfect knowledge of the 
Father was the source of the knowl- 
edge and belief to which his disciples 
had attained, as opposed to the world, 
which rejected the knowledge of God 
in rejecting him." 

26. / have declared; literally, I de- 
clared. See N. on the declaration I have 
manifested, in v. 6, of which this is an 
emphatic repetition. The verb is not 
the same as in v. 6, but one of stronger 
import, I have made known, or caused to 
be known, thy name. See N. on v. 6. 
And will declare it more fully through 
the promised Spirit. That the love, &c. 



hast loved me may be in them, 
and I in them. 

x Ch. 15 : 9. 



This stands as the result of the verbs, have 
declared and will declare. The clause, 
the love wherewith thou hast loved me, 
refers to the love of the Father for his 
Son Jesus Christ. This love embraces 
also those who have been given to 
Christ in the covenant of redemption, 
not apart from and independent of 
him, but as being one with him, by his 
indwelling presence {I in them). Christ 
then here as elsewhere, represents him- 
self as the only medium of the Father's 
love; and it was to the end of its being 
enjoyed by his disciples, that he had 
revealed and would still further reveal 
the character and will of his Father. 
/ in them. As the Son was loved of 
the Father, his indwelling presence 
secured for his followers a participation 
in the Father's love. This love of the 
Father dwells in the believer, only in 
and through the mediation of Christ, 
and the / in them, is therefore a grand 
pledge that they shall possess that love, 
not only in time, but throughout the 
ages of eternity. He will ever re- 
main in their hearts, " the hope of 
glory" in this life, and its full fruition 
in the life to come. " Christ in us, the 
love of the Father in us — is no other 
in its truth and power, than the com- 
munion of the Holy Ghost, who bring- 
eth through the grace of Christ the 
love of God to men ; this therefore ap- 
proves itself as the final aim and end of 
this petition. Such a conclusion, / in 
them, is a more sublime seal than any 
Doxology, than any Amen of other 
supplication — which indeed could find 
no place here." Stier. 

CHAPTER XVIII. 
1-12. Jesus retires to the Garden 
of Gethsemane, where he is betrayed 

AND MADE PRISONER. Mount of Olives. 

Evening introducing the sixth day of 
the Week. 

3 . In connection with this verse, see 
Notes on Matt. 26 : 30, 36-46 ; Mark 
14:26, 32-42; Luke 22 : 39-46. He 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XVIII. 



433 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

WHEN Jesus bad spoken 
these words, a he went forth 
with his disciples over h the brook 

a Mat 26 : 36 ; Ma. 14 : 32 ; Lu. 22 : 39. 

went forth from the guest chamber and 
the city. The words over the brook 
Cedron (literally, the brook of Cedrori) 
where was a garden, denote the termi- 
nation or limit of the action denoted in 
icent forth. Hence the mention of the 
passage of the brook immediately after 
the verb went forth, is both natural and 
necessary, and is no proof whatever, as 
Webster and "Wilkinson suppose, that 
the discourse in chaps. XV. -XVII. , 
was held on the way from the supper 
room to the place here named. The 
sense is that he went to a place, where 
was a garden over the brook Cedron. 
The word rendered brook, literally sig- 
nifies winter-flowing, storm-brook, and 
is used of those streams which arc 
filled in the rainy season or winter, but 
are dry in summer. The stream Cedron 
or Kidron, rises a little north-west of 
Jerusalem, and flows through the valley 
of Jehoshaphat, between the city and 
the mount of Olives. It is always dry, 
except in the rainy season after very 
heavy rains. See Rob. Lex. Wliere was 
a garden. See X. on Matt. 26 : 36. Into 
which he entered, &c. This is all that is 
recorded by John, the agony of Geth- 
semane being wholly passed over in his 
Gospel. This omission has given rise to 
many conjectures and much discussion. 
Some expositors have gone so far as to 
suppose, that by a chronological inver- 
sion, the Synoptical writers record as 
having taken place in the garden, what 
really took place in John 12 : 27 ; or that 
John there anticipated the event, and re- 
lated it out of its proper order. But 
John's omission of this circumstance 
is so accordant with his omission of 
other facts carefully and fully record- 
ed by the other Evangelists, that it is 
quite unwarrantable to argue therefrom, 
that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, post- 
dated the event to the hour before his 
apprehension. The circumstantial ac- 
count which they all give of his agony 
Vol. Ill 19 



Cedron, where was a garden, into 
the which he entered, and his dis- 
ciples. 



6 2 Sa. 15:23. 



in the garden, proves beyond all ques- 
tion that it was a verity as related, and 
not identical with John 12:27. By 
a parity of reasoning we must de- 
cide also against the theory, that 
John, in 12: 27, anticipates the scene 
of suffering, in the garden. These two 
occasions of our Lord's mental distress, 
have too many points of dissimilar- 
ity, to admit of their coincidence. 
There have not been wanting writers 
who deny the reality of the whole 
transaction, on the ground, that John, 
who alone of the Evangelists was the 
eye-witness of this occurrence, has 
passed it by in silence, while he has 
recorded at such great length the dis- 
course and prayer of Jesus, and given 
such a minute account of what trans- 
pired at the trial and crucifixion of 
his Master. But this would require us 
to reject all that is recorded in one Gos- 
pel, but not in the others. The rais- 
ing of Lazarus, found only in John ; the 
Sermon on the Mount, recorded in full 
only by Matthew ; the parables in chaps. 
XIV.-XVIIL, peculiar to Luke ; and 
other incidents, and instructions in 
the life and ministry of Jesus, found 
only in one Gospel, or omitted in one 
where it might have been suppos- 
ed they would have been inserted — 
would all be thrown out of the sacred 
record, as unsustained by the united 
testimony of all the Evangelists, and 
therefore untrue. Xo one of the Gos- 
pels contains a full and complete his- 
tory of the acts and sayings of Jesus. 
Had it been so, there would then have 
been no need of four independent 
Gospels. In regard to the selection 
of the facts to be recorded, and the 
fulness with which they were to be 
narrated, the Evangelists were guided 
by the promised Spirit of truth, who 
in so important a matter as this, would 
not leave them to their own unaided 
judgment. John indeed has not re- 



434 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



2 And Judas also, which be- 
trayed him, knew the place : c for 
Jesus ofttimes resorted thither 
with his disciples. 

3 d Judas then, having received 
a band of men and officers from 
the chief priests and Pharisees, 

cLu. 21: ST: & 22:89. 



corded the agony of Gethsemane, but 
has prepared his readers for such a 
baptism of suffering, by what he says 
in 12 : 27 ; 13 : 21, and by the remark- 
able announcement on the part of 
Jesus, that the prince of this world 
was coming to make his final assault 
upon him, and his prediction that the 
tempter would depart, finding nothing 
in him which would form a basis of 
temptation, or through which he might 
divert him from the work of man's re- 
demption upon which he had entered. 

2, 3. These verses in John, are to be 
placed immediately after Matt. 26 : 46 ; 
Mark 14:42_; Luke 22:46. They 
serve to explain the narrative as found 
in the other Evangelists, by showing- 
how it was that Judas should have 
been at hand with a great multitude, 
to intercept and arrest Jesus, as he 
was about to depart from the garden. 
The conjunction and, which introduces 
v. 2, would have been better translated 
but, the sense being slightly adver- 
sative. Judas also as well as Jesus and 
his disciples. The reason why Judas 
knew this place to be a common resort 
of Jesus, is given in the next clause for 
Jesus, &c. This throws light on Luke 
21 : 37, and perhaps on Matt. 21 : 17. 
Resorted ; literally, came together, assem- 
bled. The verb is employed as though 
it had been written, Jesus and Ids disci- 
ples assembled there, &c. This may 
nave been the place where they came 
together each night, on their return 
from the city to the Mount of Olives. 

3. Judas then, i. e. in consequence 
of his intimate acquaintance with the 
place where Jesus would be found at 
this hour. Having received as a guide, 
not as a leader. See Acts 1 : 1G. A 
band; literally, the band (or cohort. See 



cometh thither with lanterns and 
torches and weapons. 

4 Jesus therefore, knowing all 
things that should come upon 
him, went forth, and said unto 
them, Whom seek ye ? 

<ZMat. 2 



Ma. 14:43: 
16. 



Lu. 22:47: Ac. 1: 



1ST. on Matt. 27 : 27), i. e. the company 
of soldiers on duty at the time of the 
festival, for the purpose of maintaining 
order. Officers. These were the attend- 
ants or beadles of the Sanhedrim. See 
N . on 7 : 32. Chief priests and Phari- 
sees. They acted together on this oc- 
casion, and are therefore regarded as 
one body. Lanterns seem to refer here 
to lamps filled with oil. See Matt. 25 : 
1, 3, 4. Torches (literally, lights), may 
in this connection refer to any blazing 
substance carried in the hand, in the 
manner of links or torches made of 
pitch and tow. Tyndal renders it, 
torches and firebrands ; Luther, torches 
and lamps. It was now full moon, but 
the night may have been cloudy ; or 
these lamps and torches may have been 
required to search the deep recesses of 
the rocks and groves of the garden, 
whither they supposed that he might 
have betaken himself for concealment. 
Weapons, i. e. swords and staves. See 
Matt. 26 : 47 ; Mark 14 : 43. 

4. Therefore or then serves here as a 
general connective, or it introduces 
what may be regarded as a result of 
this approach of armed and hostile men 
to the garden. Knowing all things, &c. 
What calmness and majesty does this 
brief parenthesis impart to all the move- 
ments of Jesus. He knew full well the 
dreadful sufferings that awaited him. 
He had just risen from the earth, on 
which he had prostrated himself in his 
agony, and well knew the bitterness of 
that cup which he had implored his 
Father to remove from him. But yet, 
with resignation to the Father's will, 
and in full view of the cross and the 
hiding of God's countenance so dread- 
ful to his holy mind, he came forth calm 
and collected, and met those who had 



A. P. 33.] 



CHAPTER XTIII. 



435 



5 The}- answered him, Jesus 
of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto 
them, I am he. And Judas also, 
Tvhieh betrayed him. stood with 
them. 

6 As soon then as he had said 

been sent to apprehend him, with the 
question here recorded. I 
The preposition is here used of over- 
whelming Buffering. Went forth to 
meet the approaching band. It is evi- 
dent from v. 2o, that he had not actu- 
ally left the garden when he was appre- 
hended. It was probably, however, 
near the entrance that the transactions 
here mentioned took place. Wliom 
This question indicates the 
very opposite of a desire to hide away 
from the search of this band of men. 

The lead- 
er do - wered in the name of 
the rest. The use of the plural, when 
the reply is in sense that of the whole 
is quite frequent. Jesus of 
.nation was suffi- 
f explicit, as there was probably 
no other Jesus of that town: and i: 
the celebrity of our Lord l 
h the name to him, wherever it 
was uttered. They doubtless knew Je- 
he thus presented himself, but 
their fear prevented them from saying 
instead of Jesus tl N . 'ene. / 
litei y, I am, the pronoun in 
the original being emphatic : ' / am he : 
you need go no further, /am the man 
whom you seek/ And Judas stood, kc. ; 
lly, but Judas, in opposition to 
what might have been expected from 
roconcerced arrangement, that he 
should step forth and salute Jesus 

that he was the person to be ap- 
prehended. Instead of doing this, he 
remained standing with the band, 
and it was >nly after theii prostration, 
and in order to make sure his reward 

byfuifi] his engagement to the very 

letter, that he stepped forth and kissed 
Jesus, as related in Matt. 2G : 48, 49 ; 
M ! . 44,45; Luke 22 :47,4s. See 
K. on Matt. 26 : 49. Wit) '. /liter- 
ally, among them. His position was not 
prominent, yet John, who was an eye- 



unto them, I am he, they went 
backward, and fell to the ground. 
7 Then asked he them again, 
Whom seek ye '? And they said, 
Jesus of Xazareth. 



witness of the whole transaction, de- 
tected him in the crowd, even before 
he stepped forth to salute Jesus with his 
traitorous kiss. 

6. As soon, etc. The sudden recoil 
of these men before the superhuman 
majesty of our Lord, is to be taken into 
consideration, as a part of the evidence 
that the prostration here spoken of was 
not one of polite homage to a superior, 
but miraculous, and reverential, as made 
to a Being worthy of divine adoration. 
The only inquiry is whether the miracle 
was an intended one, and the result of 
the will of Jesus ; or the mere effect of 
some effluence of the divine majesty of 
his sacred person. I prefer the latter 
view, although both may be combined 
in the production of this result. Tlicy 

aehoard, does not mean that they 
turned and fled, but that they started 
back in dismay, and before the over- 
powering majesty of his person, fell 
upon the ground. That this was the 
miraculous result of the silently express- 
ed will of Jesus, or the majesty of the 
Godhead in which he temporarily ar- 
rayed himself, there can be no question 
whatever. It is the wildest of dreams 
to suppose that it was a mere act of 
reverence, such as that practised by 
Orientals in the presence of a person of 
distinction. See N. on Matt. 20 : 48. 
Fell to the (/round, i. e. prostrate upon 
the ground. 

7. Uien he asked, kc. Some little 
pause must here be allowed for them, to 

! recover from their fear and resume 
their upright position. If it be asked 

; how they could proceed to arrest and 
maltreat a person, before whom they had 
fallen prostrate as before a superior be- 
ing, the answer is to be found in the 
transient influence which fear exerts 
upon the mind, and the probable fact, 
that this sudden repulse was represent- 

1 ed by the leaders as effected by demo- 



436 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



8 Jesus answered, I have told 
you that I am he : if therefore 
ye seek me, let these go their 
way : 

9 That the saying might "be 
fulfilled, which he spake, e Of 
them which thou gavest me have 
I lost none. 

10 •''Then Simon Peter having 

<$Ch. 17:12. 
/Mat. 26 : 51 ; Ma. 14 : 47 ; Lu. 22 : 49, 50. 

niacal agency at the instance of Jesus. 
While they stood in a state of indeci- 
sion and inaction, our Lord again pro- 
posed the question in v. 4, to which 
they replied the second time, Jesus of 
Nazareth. As Jesus had already avow- 
ed himself to be the person of that 
name and designation, the answer is 
now most assuredly to be attributed to 
their fear, which prevented them from 
saying : ' we seek thee." 1 

8. / have told you, &c. Our Lord 
refers to his plain avowal of himself to 
be the man they sought, as though he 
would have added, " Why did ye not 
proceed at once to apprehend me?" 
He thus appeals to their inward con- 
science, that there was that evidence 
of the superhuman in him, which 
should arrest them from the further 
prosecution of the wicked and daring 
enterprise on which they had come. / 
am he. In regard to this I am, here 
twice repeated, Bengel says, " He will 
say it one day a third time ;" and Au- 
gustine remarks, " What will he do 
when about to pass judgment, who did 
such things when he was judged ? What 
will he be able to inflict as King on his 
throne, who had such power when about 
to die ?" If therefore ye seek me, &c. 
Here was a virtual surrender of our 
Lord, else we can hardly suppose that 
Judas would have dared to come forth 
to salute him, and the rest to appre- 
hend him, as here related. Let these 
(i. e. the disciples) go their way, i. e. de- 
part unmolested. It would seem from 
these words, that there was a disposition 
on the part of the multitude to seize first 
the disciples, in order the more safely 



a sword drew it, and smote the 
high priest's servant, and cut off 
his right ear. The servant's 
name was Malchus. 

11 Then said Jesus unto 
Peter, Put up thy sword into the 
sheath : 9 the cup which my Fa- 
ther hath given me, shall I not 
drink it ? 

#Mat. 20:22; &, 20:89,42. 



to approach Jesus. In proof of this, 
W^ebster and W r ilkinson cite Mark 14 : 
51, 52. 

9. That the saying, &c. Reference 
is had to the declaration made in 17 : 12; 
and as the deliverance and protection 
there spoken of, relates to salvation 
from spiritual evil, the fulfilment here 
must be regarded as symbolical of the 
greater deliverance from an evil world, 
which awaited them as the objects of 
his protecting love. 

10. The enemies of Jesus being em- 
boldened by his readiness to surrender 
himself, and his identity having been 
fully established by the kiss of Judas, 
which at this point we must suppose to 
have been given, now approach to lay 
hands on him, at which Peter, fired 
with indignation, and acting as usual 
under a strong and sudden impulse, 
draws his sword in order to defend his 
Master from these rude and violent 
men. John is the only Evangelist who 
gives the name of the disciple who drew 
the sword, or of the servant who was 
wounded. Having a sword. See N. on 
Luke 22 : 38. The high priesfs ser- 
vant; literally, the servant of the high 
priest. The presence of the article de- 
notes that Malchus was one of the lead- 
ing servants and attendants of the high 
priest ; not that he was the only servant 
present, for this is contradicted by v. 
26. On this incident, see more fully 
X. on Matt. 26 : 51 ; Luke 22 : 50. 

11. Put up, &c. See N. on Matt. 
26 : 52. The cup which my Father, &e. 
This clause is peculiar to John, and is 
in sympathy with the language employ- 
ed in our Lord's hour of agony in the 



A. D. SS.] 



CHAPTER XTIH. 



437 



12 *[ Then the band and the nas first ; for he was father-in-law 
captain and officers of the Jews to Caiaphas. which was the high 
took Jesus, and bound him, priest that same year. 

13 And 4 led him awav to { An- a See Mt 26 : 57. • La. 3 : •:. 



ly had an hour elapsed 
since he had most earnestly prayed that 
; suffering might pass from 
him ; but it was his Father's will that 
he should d:ink it. This is here de- 
by hath given me, i. e. hath put 
into my hands to drink. Shall I not 
Hiis :.:n is rhetorically 

put for an emphatic affirmation, that 
to render cheerful and 
submissive obedience to the will of his 
.. Here comes in the reference 
to twelve legions of angel fct. 26 : 

I : ') which point and force was given 
recorded in v. 6, and 
which is peculiar to John. This showed 
Jesus was volun- 
tnd not in the least degree com- 
y. He had only to make a faint 
y of the supreme divinity resident 
in him, and those who were now ap- 
proaching him with hostile intent, would 
be consumed in a moment. He had 
only to pray to his Father, and angels 
would descend to scatter his enemies, 
:aff before the wind of heaven. 
But then how were the Scriptures to 
be fulfilled, that thus it was to be (Matt. 
'.-. ■ The pronoun if, is not a pie- 
is an empa, tic i . \;n of 
cup, to which it refers. ' Shall 1 not 
..lough so bitter and repul- 

12. The strict :rder of events, as laid 
down in Matt __: 50, 51; Markl4: 

' . would require in John tha: this 
verse should precede vs. 10, 11. Ac- 

og to those Evangelists, Jesus was 
seized and bound, before Peter drew 
the sword and smote Malchus. The , 

. o as-igned to the act by John, is 
when the soldiers are about to lay 
hands on Jesus. Such slight variations 
do not impeach in the least the veracity 
of the sacred penmen, but on the con- 
trary serve to establish and confirm 
their credibility, by the evidence there- 
by furnished, that there was no col- j 
lusion among them. The band and \ 



the captain and officers of the Jews. 

We are here informed who the per- 
sons were that apprehended Jesus, 
and who are referred to in the other 
Evangelists by the simple pronoun they. 
It was not a rabble or motley gang of 
worthless persons alone who came 
forth to arrest Jesus, but with them 
were persons of influence and distinc- 
tion (see X. on Luke 22:. 52'. The 
captain here mentioned, was a ckiliarch 
or captain of a thousand men, and the 
were those who executed the 
orders of the Sanhedrim. This shows 
that the arrest was made under the or- 
der of the supreme Jewish council. See 
X. on Matt. 26: 47. Took Jesus, i. e. 
apprehended him. Bound him. John, 
alone records fully this fact, although it 
misht be gathered from the other Evan- 
= i Matt. 26: 45 ; Mark 14: 44). 
The fact that his arms were now pin- 
ioned so that he could not move them, 
may be referred to in suffer ye thus far, 
in I 22 : 51, on which see Xote. 

13-1--. 25-27. Jesus eefore Caia- 
phas. Peter thrice denies him. Jc- 
n. Xight introducing the sixth 
dav of the Week. See Xs. on Matt. 26 : 
--.I: Mark 14: 53,54, 66-72; 
L _£: 54-62. 

13. To Annas first. This is peculiar 
to John. For the reconciliation of this 

:.uthew26: 57, where it is said 
that Jesus was led to Caiaphas, see 
Xoce on Matthew. This first hearing 
of Jesus is recorded alone by John. 
For he was father-in-law to Caiaphas. 
See X. on Luke 3 : 2. Webster and 
Wilkinson think that Annas was a: this 
time acting as the Sagan or deputy to Cai- 
aphas. Which was the high priest, kc. 
This, together with what is said in 11 : 
49, 51, would seem to imply a recogni- 
tion by the Evangelist, of the frequency 
with which high priests were chosen 
and displaced in those turbulent times. 

14. See X. on 11: 50. This paren- 
thetic reference is intended to show why 



438 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



14 ^'Now Caiaphas was lie, 
which gave counsel to the Jews, 
that it was expedient that one man 
should die for the people. 

15 'And Simon Peter followed 
Jesus, and so did another disci- 
ple : that disciple was known 
unto the high priest, and went 

h Oh. 11 : 50. 

I Mat. 26 : 5S ; Ma. 14 : 54 ; Lu. 22 : 54. 



Jesus was immediately brought before 
Annas and Caiaphas. It was in accord- 
ance with the murderous advice of the 
latter, that the rulers fully resolved 
to rid themselves of Jesus by putting 
him to death. Hence it was at his di- 
rection, that Jesus was brought that 
very night to a trial before the Sanhe- 
drim, convened at the palace of the 
high priest. 

15. The Evangelist here proceeds to 
speak of the fall of Peter, and of the 
trial of our Lord, as though he had in- 
formed his readers, that Jesus had been 
removed from the house of Annas to 
that of Caiaphas. This he had not 
done, and Ave are left to infer the fact 
from the general current of the narra- 
tive, until in v. 24 he distinctly in- 
forms us at whose tribunal Jesus was 
now standing. Simon Peter, &c. John 
is far more full and circumstantial in 
his account of Peter's denial, than either 
of the other Evangelists. Most of what 
is here related in vs. 15-18, is found 
only in his Gospel. That Peter followed 
Jesus at some distance, and then went 
into the high priest's palace and sat 
with the servants, is recorded by all the 
Evangelists. But no mention whatever 
is made by any of them save John, of 
another disciple (literally, the other dis- 
ciple), who accompanied him, and who 
was doubtless the Evangelist himself; 
although there have not been wanting 
expositors, who have absurdly main- 
tained that it was Judas Iscariot who 
thus accompanied Peter. The article 
in the other disciple, does not refer it to 
Judas as the person last mentioned, by 
any grammatical necessity, and the 
whole sense and scope of the narrative 
is against so preposterous an idea. That 



in with Jesus into the palace of 
the high priest. 

16 ■* But Peter stood at the 
door without. Then went out 
that other disciple, which was 
known unto the high priest, and 
spake unto her that kept the 
door, and brought in Peter. 

m Mat. 26 : 69 ; Ma. 14 : 66 ; Lu. 22 : 54. 

Peter should have laid himself under any 
obligation of the kind referred to in 
v. 16, to one of whose black perfidy to 
his Master, he had just been an indig- 
nant eye-witness, is utterly incredible. It 
is equally grammatical and infinitely 
more reasonable to refer it to the disci- 
ple, who was on such intimate terms 
with Peter, that the bare mention of 
one name suggested that of the other. 
It is as though the Evangelist had said : 
'Peter and the other disciple who was 
on terms of intimate companionship 
with him, namely John.' One has only 
to turn to Matt, 17: 1; Luke 2?2: 8; 
John 13 : 23, 24 ; 20 : 3, 4 ; 21 : 7 ; Acts 
3:1; 8 : 14, to be convinced that the 
phrase the other disciple, would point out 
with sufficient distinctness John himself, 
as the disciple whom he had thus mod- 
estly designated. It were needless to 
inquire how John became acquainted 
with the high priest. The fact is all 
we know, and all else would be vain 
conjecture. Went in with Jesus. His 
intimacy with the high priest was such, 
that he was admitted at the same time 
with Jesus and his accusers. Peter, who 
could claim no such privilege on the 
ground of acquaintanceship with any 
of the officials, was obliged for the time 
to remain without at the entrance. 

16. But Peter stood, &c. The context 
refers this to the fact, that he was a 
stranger to the door-keeper. Then went 
out, &c. All this is very natural. John 
having secured his own admission, 
passed, in with the crowd, and after- 
ward came out and brought in his friend, 
as here narrated. Unto Iter, kc. Por- 
tresses were not uncommon among the 
Jews. See Acts 12:13. 

17. This first denial of Peter took 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVIII. 



439 



17 Then saith the damsel that f 18 And the servants and offi- 
kept the door unto Peter, Art cers stood there, who had made a 
not thou also one of this man's ' fire of coals, for it was cold ; and 
disciples ? He saith, I am not. . they warmed themselves : and 



place where he stood and warmed him- j 
self by the fire of coals, which had 
been kindled in the interior and open 
court (see X. on Matt. 26 : 58), inas- 
much as the nights at this season of 
the year were cold, especially towards 
morning. The damsel that kept, &c. 
Her suspicions in regard to Peter may 
have been awakened by some word or 
passionate gesture, which indicated his 
feelings toward Jesus, while he was 
waiting outside for admission. It is 
not likely that a person of his daring 
and excitable temper, would remain a 
cool and unconcerned spectator of what 
was going on, especially while standing 
outside of the palace, with no one but 
the portress to see him. But even if Pe- 
ter's self-possession was such as not to 
betray him, the fact of his being with 
John, who doubtless made no se- 
cret of his discipleship, would indicate 
also that he was one of Jesus' disciples. 
Art not thou, &c. The form of the 
question in the original is such as to 
imply a negative answer. It denotes a 
slight shade of apprehension, that an 
affirmative answer may be returned to 
the question. This is expressed by us 
in common parlance : ' You was not 
with him ! It cannot be that you are of 
his company ! ' This shade of sentiment 
might also be communicated, by the 
tone in which the inquiry was proposed. 
Also as well as John, who probably | 
made no concealment of the fact of his 
connection with Jesus, either here or 
at the cross (19 : 26). We are informed 
by Luke (22 : 56), that the damsel j 
earnestly looked upon Peter, in order j 
to identify him with the one whom she j 
had previously admitted at the instance | 
of John. We arc not informed whether 
she proposed this question with ill in- \ 
tent, or from the mere wish to have 
her curiosity satisfied, and add to her 
stock of gossip. Of this however we , 
are quite certain, that had Peter openly 
and boldly proclaimed his discipleship, i 



or been intent upon the trial of his 
Master, instead of attempting to conceal 
his position by sitting among the ser- 
vants and attendants, and listening 
without a word of rebuke to their 
abuse of Jesus, he would have been 
spared the anguish and remorse conse- 
quent upon his great sin, which to the 
day of his death, although so fully 
pardoned by his gracious Master, must 
have been remembered with a feeling 
of shame and self-reproach. Of this 
mail's disciples ; literally, of the (number 
of the) disciples of this man. I am 
not. He added also other forms of de- 
nial, which are recorded by the other 
Evangelists. 

IS. This verse is interjectional, and 
designed to show where and with whom 
Peter was standing, when he thus denied 
all knowledge of his Master. Servants 
and officers. This marks a distinction 
between the persons designated by 
these terms. The former class were 
the servants of the chief priests, al- 
though oftentimes, as here, they may 
have been called into a more public 
service. The officers were the appari- 
tors or beadles of the Sanhedrim, em- 
ployed to make arrests, convey public 
messages, superintend the police de- 
partment of the temple service, and the 
like. See X. on v. 3. A fire of coals, 
i. e. a charcoal fire. John alone notices 
the material of which the fire was com- 
posed. The same is true also of the 
declaration, for it teas cold. All this 
shows him to have been an independent 
eye-witness of the transactions here re- 
corded. Peter stood, &c. Literally, 
and with them was Peter standing and 
warming himself. Emphasis is given 
to the fact, that among those persons 
who had arrested his Master, and 
upon whom he had just before drawn 
his sword in defence of Jesus, Peter 
stood as though he was one of them, 
and had never known the prisoner, who 
now in his hearing was undergoing 



440 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



Peter stood with them, and 
warmed himself. 

19 The high priest then asked 
Jesus of his disciples, and of his 
doctrine. 

20 Jesus answered him, n I 
spake openly to the world; I 

«Mt. 26:55; Lu. 4:15; ch. 7:14, 26,28; & 

8:2. 

such injustice and insult at the hands 
of his enemies. 

19. 19-24. Jesus before Caiaphas 
and the Sanhedrim. Jerusalem. Morn- 
ing of the sixth day of the Week. This 
preliminary examination before the 
high priest is peculiar to John, and is 
to be placed immediately before Luke 
22 : 66, which introduces Matt. 26 : 59 ; 
Mark 14: 55. The narration of Peter's 
denial, which is carried forward in the 
other Evangelists without interruption, 
is here suspended until v. 25, where it 
is again resumed. The high priest, i. e. 
Caiaphas. See v. 24. Stier contends 
that it was Annas who, as high priest, 
conducted this examination, and cites as 
of the same opinion, Chrysostom, Au- 
gustine, Olshausen, B. Crusius, Nean- 
der, Lange, Meyer, and Luthardt. On 
the other hand, Luther, Grotius, Bengel, 
Tholuck, De Wette, Webster and Wil- 
kinson, in the light of v. 24, refer this 
hearing to the tribunal of Caiaphas. 
As we have no positive proof in fa- 
vor of either opinion, the question is 
one which will ever remain unsettled, 
and find advocates for both of the 
views above given. Then connects 
this verse with v. 14. Ashed Jesus of 
(literally, concerning) his disciples, &c. 
This is in accordance with the usual 
form of judicial interrogation, which 
commences with general and indirect 
questions, especially in a preliminary 
examination like that which Jesus was 
now undergoing. By this general in- 
quiry, the high priest may have hoped 
to elicit something from Jesus which 
would serve to criminate him; or at 
least to learn from his own lips how 
extensively his doctrines had spread, 
and who of the rulers or common peo- 
ple believed on him. Webster and Wil- 



ever taught in the synagogue, and 
in the temple, whither the Jews 
always resort ; and in secret have 
I said nothing. 

21 Why askest thou me? ask 
them which heard me, what I 
have said unto them : behold, 
they know what I said. 

kinson suggest, that the inquiry con- 
cerning the disciples of Jesus arose 
from the high priest's acquaintance 
with one of them. Of his doctrine, i. e. 
concerning its nature, relations, and 
design. Perhaps a question or two re- 
specting our Lord's disciples, was fol- 
lowed by this interrogation in regard 
to his doctrine, to which he replies, 
knowing well that the previous ques- 
tions were introductory to those which 
followed. 

20. / spake openly to the world. ' I 
practised no concealment of my doc- 
trines or acts. Every thing was done 
in a public and open manner.' The 
world is here the Jewish people, who, 
as we have seen in their opposition to 
Christ and rejection of his doctrines, 
were the type and symbol of the world 
at large, to whom 'the Gospel was soon 
to be sent by the ministry of the apos- 
tles and their successors. lever taught 
(i. e. my practice was to teach) in the 
synagogue (generically put for syna- 
gogues) and in the temple, i. e. in places of 
public religious worship and instruction. 
Whither refers to both the antecedents, 
the synagogue and temple, but more par- 
ticularly to the latter, as the great 
place of public resort at the time of the 
national festivals. Always on the pre- 
scribed days of w r orship in the syna- 
gogue, and on the great festal occasions 
which drew people from all quarters of 
the land to the temple. In secret, &c. 
This is spoken in a comparative sense, 
and is no denial of the fact, that he hud 
communicated much instruction to his 
disciples in private. The idea is that 
he had never sought privacy or con- 
cealment in regard to his works or doc- 
trines, and that he had said nothing in 
the most private and familiar inter- 



A- D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVIII. 



441 



22 And when lie had thus [ 23 Jesus answered him, If I 
spoken, one of the officers which J have spoken evil, bear witness 
stood by ° struck Jesus with the j of the evil : but if well, why 



palm of his hand, saying, An- 
swerest thou the high priest so ? 

course with his disciples, which was op- 
posed to the tenor of his public dis- 
courses. 

21. Such having been the public 
character of his ministry, our Lord 
asks Caiaphas, why he seeks informa- 
tion from him in regard to a matter, 
respecting which such ample testimony 
might be obtained from those who had 
listened to his public discourses. It 
was contrary to all law and precedent 
to seek evidence from the arraigned 
person, which was so abundant and 
easy to be obtained from thousands in 
Jerusalem and all parts of the land. 
Luthardt therefore rightly terms these 
questions of the high priest, captious 
and inquisitorial. Why askest thou 
me, as though I were the only source 
whence you can gain the information 
you require? Ask them which heard 
-me, who are here in Jerusalem and all 
over the land, and can easily be sum- 
moned to the stand as witnesses. What 
I have said ; literally, what I said, his 
whole ministry being referred to as 
though it were a momentary act, and 
occupying but a single point of time. 
This gives great emphasis to the verb. 
Reference is had in what I said unto 
than, to the general purport of his pub- 
lic instructions. The pronoun they, in 
the original, is the demonstrative these, 
which Bengel refers to some of the 
multitude who were present, and to 
whom Jesus pointed as being well ac- 
quainted with his doctrine. Alford 
hints that the officers spoken of in 7 : 
46, may have been present. 

22. His answer so completely ex- 
posed the motives of the high priest in 
thus questioning Jesus, and withal was 
so triumphant a refutation of the 
charges implied in the questions pro- 
posed (v. 19), that he was stirring up 
rebellion against the Romans and 
teaching heresy, that one of the offi- 
cers, either enraged that the high 

Vol. III.— 19* 



smitest thou me ? 



oJe. 20:2: Ac. 23:2. 



priest should be so baffled in his wily 
plan to entrap Jesus, or through a de- 
sire to curry favor with his superiors by 
the zeal with which he espoused their 
cause, struck Jesus, and thus was the 
first to inflict a blow upon the sacred 
person of the Redeemer of men. 
Which stood by, i. e. near to Jesus. 
Struck Jesus with the palm of his hand; 
literally, gave him a slap with the open 
hand. " See N. on Matt. 26 : 67. A 
blow or slap of this sort upon the face, 
was deemed an act of the highest in- 
dignity. See Job 16:10; 1 Kings 
22 : 24. This inferior officer would not 
have dared to commit this outrage upon 
Jesus while under examination, had he 
not been fully aware of what was pre- 
determined against him by the Sanhe- 
drim. Answerest thou, &c. He seeks 
to justify this gross indignity, by pre- 
tending to find in the reply of Jesus, 
disrespect to the high priest. A simi- 
lar scene was enacted in the trial of 
Paul, as recorded in Acts 23 : 4. 

23. If I have spoken evil. The hy- 
pothesis is not one of doubt as to 
whether the reply of Jesus was blame- 
worthy or otherwise, but a form of 
stating the charge in order the more 
effectually to refute it. If I have spo- 
ken, would have been more literally 
translated, if I spoke, reference being 
had to the remonstrance which Jesus 
had just made against the inquisitorial 
proceedings of the high priest. The 
word evil, does not here refer to the 
evil quality of what our Lord had said, 
but to the manner in which it had been 
spoken. Our word amiss, answers 
very well to the idea. Bear witness, 
i. e. furnish legal proof. A mere charge 
accompanied by an act of violence, was 
not sufficient to impeach the reply of 
Jesus, as wrong either in matter or 
manner. Webster and Wilkinson re- 
fer to an important principle here laid 
down : "No one must prejudge or take 



442 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



24 p Now Annas had sent him 
bound unto Caiaphas the high 
priest. 

25 And Simon Peter stood 
and warmed himself. q They said 
therefore unto him, Art not thou 

p Mt. 26 : 57. 
q Mt. 2G : 69, 71 ; Ma. 14: 69 ; Lu. 22 : 5S. 

the law into his own hands, much less 
may any officer of the law." But if 
well, &c. Thus, in either case, the of- 
ficer had been guilty of an unwarrant- 
able outrage, and should have been 
punished therefor. But so far from 
this, his zeal for the honor of the high 
priest was doubtless praised and re- 
warded, and this may have been in 
part the reason, why all the officers 
and servants afterward vied with one 
another in heaping insults and indigni- 
ties upon Jesus. See Matt. 26 : 67 ; 
Mark 14 : 65 ; Luke 22 : 63, 64. 

24. Those expositors who suppose 
the hearing thus far to have been 
preliminary and before Annas, here 
find the transition to the palace of 
Caiaphas. The rendering of the verb 
in the aorist by the pluperfect, they 
of course reject as wholly erroneous 
and unnecessary. So Alford translates, 
Annas sent him bound, &c. Luthardt, 
whom Alford quotes as high authority, 
says that " John had no need to relate 
the hearing before Caiaphas, for he has 
related it 11:47 — 53, and we have ere 
this been familiarized with the habit 
of our Evangelist not to narrate any 
further the outward process, when he 
has already by anticipation substan- 
tially given us the result." In order 
however to reach this exposition, the 
particle translated in our common ver- 
sion, now, which is evidently retrospec- 
tive, is rejected as spurious. This is a 
point to be submitted to MS. authori- 
ty, which I am inclined to think pre- 
ponderates in favor of the common 
reading. It will be seen, by a refer- 
ence to my Note on Matt. 26 : 59, that 
a doubt is there expressed, whether the 
examination here recorded took place 
at the house of Annas or Caiaphas. This 
doubt is not yet fully solved, although 



also one of his disciples ? He 
denied it, and said, I am not. 

26 One of the servants of the 
high priest, being his kinsman 
whose ear Peter cut off, saith, 
Did not I see thee in the garden 
with him ? 



at present I incline to the belief, that 
it was before Caiaphas that this pre- 
liminary examination took place. The 
words Caiaphas the high priest, would 
seem clearly to indicate that, when 
John speaks of the high priest, his ref- 
erence must be to the person whom he 
thus formally announces to be the in- 
cumbent of that office. See also v. 13. 

25. The nai'rative of Peter's denial 
is hero resumed from v. 17. Simon 
Peter. Both here and in v. 15, his 
double name is given. Stood and 
warmed himself. This serves to estab- 
lish the identity of this denial, with the 
first one narrated by the other Evan- 
gelists. They all speak of three dis- 
tinct denials ; the order is comparative- 
ly of little consequence. They (i. e. the 
servants who stood around) said there- 
fore unto him. In regard to the har- 
monizing of the statements made by the 
different Evangelists, see N. on Matt. 
26:72. The word therefore, introduces 
the question, as a natural consequence 
of their leisurely position around the 
fire, discussing, as all such persons in 
attendance are wont to do, the affair 
which was engaging the attention of 
their superiors in the adjoining apart- 
ment. Art not thou, &c. Here again 
the form of the question implies the 
expectation of a negative answer. See 
N. on v. 17. Also has here, as in v. 
17, reference to the other disciple, who 
went in with Peter, and now stood ab- 
sorbed in the trial, while his companion 
was thus yielding to cowardly fear, and 
by the strangeness of his demeanor 
turning all eyes upon him. 

26. It will appear by a comparison 
of the other Evangelists, especially 
Matthew and Mark, that there were 
many who recognized Peter as one of 
Christ's disciples, and charged him with 



A. D. 



■] 



CHAPTER XVin. 



443 



27 Peter then denied again ; 
and r immediately tlie cock crew. 

2S 1" ' Then 'led they Jesus 
from Caiaphas unto the hall of 

r Mat 2G : 74; Ma. 14 : 72 ; Lu. 22 : CO ; ch. 13 

SS. 
sMt. 27:2; Ma. 15:1 ; Lu. 23: 1; Ac. 3:13: 

the fact. Meanwhile, it appears from 
John that one of them, who had gone 
forth with the multitude to apprehend 
Jesus, and Mho was a relative of Mal- 
chus (see v. 10), affirmed in the usual 
interrogative manner, that he had seen 
Peter in the garden in the company of 
Jesus. It was his irritation and alarm at 
these repeated recognitions, and espe- 
cially this last charge, which he feared 
might be followed by his arrest for at- 
tempting to prevent the officers of the 
law from the performance of their duty, 
that caused him to curse and to swear 
in the manner related in Matt. 26 : 74. 
Did not I see tliee, &c. Here the form 
of the question is so changed from that 
in vs. 17, 25, that an affirmative, instead 
of a negative answer, is expected. It is 
as though the questioner had said : ' I 
certainly did see you, and you cannot 
deny it.' This will account for the ex- 
treme agitation of Peter, on hearing 
this question proposed in this positive 
form. 

27. Peter then, i. e. in consequence 
of the question which Malchus' kins- 
man had put to him. Denied again, 
or the third time. We learn from 
Matthew and Mark, that he accompa- 
nied this denial with oaths and impre- 
cations. Immediately. Luke: immedi- 
ately while he yet spake. The startling 
suddenness with which that sound fell 
upon his ear, together with the piercing, 
sorrowful look of Jesus, awakened Pe- 
ter to a sense of his sin, and he went 
forth to weep tears of bitter contrition 
and self-reproach. See N. on Matt. 
26:75. 

28-38. The Sanhedrim lead Jesus 
away to Pilate. Jerusalem. Sixth day 
of the Week. See Ns. on Matt. 27 : 1, 2, 
11-14; Mark 15:1-5; Luke 23:1-5. 
John's account of this portion of the his- 
tory of our Lord's passion, is much fuller 
than that of the Synoptic Evangelists, 



judgment : and it was early ; 
' and they themselves went not 
into the judgment hall, lest they 
should be denied : but that they 
might eat the passover. 

t Ac. 10:28; & 11 :& 

vs. 34-38, being peculiar to his ac- 
count, and the whole narration inter- 
spersed with incidents not elsewhere 
mentioned. Between this leading of 
Jesus to Pilate's bar, and the last denial 
of Peter as related by John, must be 
put the second or principal trial of Je- 
sus before the Sanhedrim, passed over 
by John, but recorded in Matt. 26 : 59- 
68 ; Mark 14 : 55-65 ; Luke 22 : 63-71. 
Before entering upon the critical exami- 
nation of this portion of John, the 
reader is referred for the establishment 
of the connection, to X. on Matt. 27 : 1. 
It will be seen by this reference, that 
while John omits to notice the trial of 
Jesus before the Sanhedrim, neverthe- 
less in what passed at Pilate's tribunal, 
he gives the result so clearly, that we 
readily gather that the council had de- 
termined to effect the death of Jesus, 
by accusing him of sedition to the Ko- 
man governor. 

2S. Tlien, or so then, marking the 
progress of the narrative. Prom Caia- 
phas ; literally, from (the palace) of 
Caiaphas. See v. 24. Unto the hall of 
judgment ; literally, thepretorium. See 
N. on Mark 15:16. This name, which was 
properly given to the general's tent or 
head-quarters, came to signify also the 
palace or head-quarters of the provin- 
cial governors. It teas early. It ap- 
pears from Matt. 27 : 1, that the consul- 
tation which followed the trial and 
condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhe- 
drim, as to the best and surest mode of 
effecting his death, took place in the 
morning. As it was yet early morning, 
when they led Jesus to the governors 
palace, it shows with what haste they 
urged on the preliminary steps to his 
execution, so that the people whose at- 
tachment to Jesus was well known, 
might not be acquainted with what was 
going on, until it was too late to arrest 
the proceedings or interfere in his be- 



414 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 83. 



29 Pilate then went out unto 



half. They themselves went not in, &c. 
The room of the Roman governor was 
doubtless hung with idolatrous ensigns, 
and filled with all the symbols of hea- 
then worship. For a Jew to enter such 
an apartment, was a thing of rare oc- 
currence ; and if of necessity or through 
inadvertence he did this, he was cere- 
monially unclean till the evening. Un- 
less Jesus anticipated the celebration 
of the paschal supper a day, the Jews 
must have eat the passover on the pre- 
ceding evening (see N. on 13 : 1 ; Matt. 
26 : 2, 17). This is sufficient authority 
for us to take the word passover here, 
in the general sense of the feast of un- 
leavened bread. That it does not re- 
fer to the paschal feast properly so 
called, is evident from the fact, that if 
it had not already been eaten, it would 
not take place until the evening (i. e. our 
Friday evening), which according to the 
Jewish mode of reckoning time would 
belong to the next day, that is, to our 
Saturday. Hence had the Jews gone 
into the hall of Pilate, they could have 
eat the passover that evening, belong- 
ing as it did to the next day. This 
shows that their fear of ceremonial un- 
cleanness had reference to the feast 
which followed the paschal supper, and 
which continued seven days called the 
days of unleavened bread. This argu- 
ment gathers strength also from the 
express provision made in Numb. 9 : 
10, that the ceremonially unclean might 
eat of the paschal lamb. But not only 
have we warrant for taking the passover 
in this extended sense of the paschal 
festival (see Luke 22 :7; 2:41, com- 
pared with 43 ; Matt. 26 : 2 ; John 2 : 
13 ; 6:4), but the word passover, may be 
taken in the sense of paschal sacrifices, 
or voluntary peace offerings and thank 
offerings, made in the temple during the 
paschal festival (see Ps. 118 : 27, where 
sacrifice, literally signifies festival ; see 
also Ex. 23: 18; Mai. 2: 3, and perhaps 
2Chron. 30 : 22). If the word passover, be 
taken in this sense, which is forbidden by 
no law of exegesis, and which, as the 
above references show, is supported by 



them, and said, What accusation 
bring ye against this man ? 

general usage, then in the duty and desire 
of the chief priests and other members 
of the Sanhedrim to participate in these 
sacrificial offerings and banquets, may 
be found a reason, why they did not 
wish to debar themselves by any cere- 
monial uncleanness of the kind here 
referred to. See Robinson's Eng. Har. 
p. 201. In this case the verb might eat, 
may be taken literally ; but if the 
passover is taken in the sense of the 
passover festival, then the verb must 
have the sense might celebrate, a mean- 
ing which it manifestly has in 2 Chron. 
30 : 22. In view of these modes of ex- 
planation, both of which are admissible, 
we can hardly sympathize with those 
commentators, who find insuperable 
difficulties in the way of reconciling 
John here with the other Evangelists. 

29. Pilate then went out, &c. This 
clearly implies that Jesus had been 
taken into the pretorium. See also v. 
33. It is noticeable how abruptly both 
John and Mark introduce the Roman 
governor to their readers. Matthew 
(27 : 2) gives his title, and Luke intro- 
duces him to notice in the very com- 
mencement of his gospel (3 : 1). What 
accusation (or formal charge) bring ye, 
&c. This shows how tumultously and 
regardless of all judicial forms, they 
had dragged Jesus to the bar of Pilate. 
Thrusting him into the pretorium, they 
seemed to have awaited with all confi- 
dence the decree of his death, thinking 
that Pilate would require no formal 
charge against the prisoner, but in or- 
der to gratify them, would pass imme- 
diate sentence upon him. But now, in 
the very outset, the governor demands 
of them a formal accusation against 
Jesus, before he will proceed to adjudi- 
cate the case. There is every reason 
to believe, that the Sanhedrim, at least 
so many of them as were opposed to 
Jesus, were present in a body with An- 
nas and Caiaphas at their head, in order 
to give weight to such charges as they 
might feel it necessary to make, to se- 
cure the condemnation of Jesus. 

30. Embarrassed for a moment by 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XVIII. 



445 



30 They answered and said 
unto him, If he were not a mal- 
efactor, we would not have de- 
livered him up unto thee. 

31 Then said Pilate unto them, 
Take ye him, and judge him ac- 
cording to your law. The Jews 
therefore said unto him, It is not 
lawful for us to put any man to 
death : 



this demand of Pilate for a formal 
charge against Jesus, they have no 
other resource than to basely insinuate, 
that he was a well-known malefactor, or 
they would by no means have taken 
such pains to bring him to justice. 
As yet they make no formal charge. 
The lie which they meditated in charg- 
ing him with sedition, to use a well 
known expression, stuck in their throat, 
and they could not give it utterance. 
It would not do to accuse him of 
blasphemy, for in that case they well 
knew that Pilate would refuse to take 
any cognizance whatever of such a 
charge, as was afterwards done by Gal- 
lio (Acts 18 : 16). We would not have 
delivered him up to thee for punishment. 
What pretended innocence of all selfish 
ends in accusing Jesus to Pilate ! The 
word malefactor or evil doer, is of ex- 
tensive signification ; and spoken of a 
criminal brought before the bar of the 
Eoman governor, would almost of neces- 
sity suggest the idea of political crime. 
Thus craftily, by awakening the appre- 
hensions of Pilate, did they proceed to 
compass their bloody design. 

31. The reply of Pilate is regarded 
by the best expositors as ironical. It 
is as though he had said: 'If you sup- 
pose that I have such confidence in the 
purity of your motive, and in the cor- 
rectness of your judgment, as to put 
this man to death on your mere word, 
why do you bring him to me? Why 
not dispose of him at once, according 
to your own law and usages?' Stier 
cites Souchon as best expressing the 
sense of Pilate's reply: "Am I to exe- 
cute your judgment? If ye examine 
alone, then condemn alone, if ye can!" 



32 " That the saying of Jesus 
might be fulfilled, which he spake, 
signifying what death he should 
die. 

33 "Then Pilate entered into 
the judgment hall again, and 
called Jesus, and said unto him, 
Art thou the King of the Jews? 

u Mat. 20 : 19 ; ch. 12 : 82, S3. 
a Mat. 27 : 11. 

Tlie Jews therefore, in reply to the 
ironical taunt of Pilate. It is not law~ 
fid, i. e. we are not permitted by the 
Roman authority. This puts at rest 
the mooted question, whether the pow- 
er of life and death rested with the 
Sanhedrim. It is not likely that these 
proud Jews would have so openly ad- 
mitted this, had they not been com- 
pelled thereto, by their desire to obtain 
sentence of death against Jesus from 
the Roman governor. All these cir- 
cumstances show how rank was their 
hostility to Jesus. Every other con- 
sideration for the time being, gave place 
to this one great desire to accomplish 
his death. 

32. This verse is logically dependent 
upon the preceding one; but the gene- 
ral connection requires us to place after 
their hypocritical disclaimer of all right 
to inflict capital punishment upon any 
offender, the charge recorded in Luke 
23 : 2. John makes no mention of this, 
but evidently has it in his eye, and 
knowing the mode of punishment prac- 
tised upon political malefactors, refers 
to the prediction of Jesus, as thus find- 
ing its fulfilment. The word that, has 
the eventual sense given it in N. on 
Matt. 1 : 22. The saying of Jesus, i. e. 
what in effect he said. Which he spake. 
See 12: 33. What death, i. e. what 
kind of death. The Roman punishment 
was crucifixion (Acts 2 : 23). Had he 
been remanded to the Jews for punish- 
ment, he would have suffered death by 
stoning. 

33. Jesus remained in the pretorium 
(see N. on v. 28), while Pilate w r ent 
forth to ascertain on what charge he 
had been brought before him. He now 



446 



JOHN. 



[A. D. S3. 



34 Jesus answered him, Sayest 
thou this thing of thyself, or did 
others tell it thee of me ? 

35 Pilate answered, Am I a 



reenters the judgment-hall and pro- 
poses the question, Art thou the king 
of the Jews? The charge made in Luke 
2 3:2, although not expressly recorded 
by John, is therefore fully implied in 
this question of Pilate. 

34. Sayest thou this of thyself i. e. 
from any personal knowledge that I 
have set myself up as a king. Or did 
others (i. e. the Jews) tell it thee of me? 
"I regard this question as intended to 
distinguish the senses of the word King, 
as applied to Jesus, of course not for 
the information of Him who asked it, 
but to bring out this distinction in Pi- 
late's mind. If he asked of himself 
the word could certainly have but one 
meaning, and that one would be wrong- 
ly applied ; — if from information de- 
rived from the Jews, this very fact 
would open the way to the true mean- 
ing in which He was King of the 
Jew r s." Alford. Stier and Ebrard dis- 
cern this meaning in the question : 
" Hast thou thyself, not now as man, 
but as the governor of these Jews, 
who can tolerate no king over them, 
come by any facts, to the knowledge 
of my making myself a king?" But 
because this was not so, and Pilate for- 
bore, as Jesus knew he would, to in- 
quire more earnestly into the deep 
meaning of this word, the second point 
of the dilemma alone remains, which 
Christ knew that Pilate would affirm — 
He thus speaks and acts because the 
Jews have told him ! But after all, is 
it not more natural to give to this in- 
quiry a sense, vindicative of the inno- 
cence of Jesus in regard to the charge 
that he was aspiring to be king of the 
Jews? The question implies that Pi- 
late, with all his vigilant and jealous 
oversight, had never of himself (i. e. 
through his own agents and informers) 
detected in Jesus any act or aspiration 
for temporal power. This question 
therefore could not have originated 
with himself, but was clearly traceable 



Jew ? Thine own nation and the 
chief priests have delivered thee 
unto me : what hast thou done ? 



to the envy and malice of the Jews. 
Tholuck adopts this as the sense, and 
regards it an indirect reference to the 
fact, that the governor well knew the 
baselessness of the charge. Such wa3 
the opinion of Chrysostom and other 
ancient expositors, and such is that also 
of Calvin, Doddridge, Bloomfield, and 
Webster and Wilkinson. 

35. Am I a Jew, to trouble myself 
with their peculiarities and mystical no- 
tions? This reply conveys no taunt to 
Jesus, but is rather a proud disclaimer 
that a Roman governor should conde- 
scend to trouble himself about words 
and questions of the Jewish law. It 
also answers the former part of the 
question, am I a Jew ? I must have 
been one, instead of being as I am a 
Roman, to have learned by personal 
observation the truth of the allegation 
which the Jews now make against 
you. Tfiine own nation, &c. 'I have 
no knowledge whatever of this matter, 
save what has been reported to me by 



thv 



Pilate thus acknowl- 



edges that others caused him to ask 
that question. He thus puts himself 
in the false position of a Roman magis- 
trate meddling with a purely Jewish 
question in nothing (according to his 
own view) affecting his government." 
Prof. Crosby. Thine own nation, i. e. 
the rulers and principal men of the 
nation. This is indicated by chief 
priests, which is added for the sake of 
explanation. It must have appeared 
strange to Pilate, that in the present 
restive and rebellious state of the Jews, 
the chief men of the nation should have 
accused any one to him of aspiring to 
rid the land of Roman rule. Hath de- 
livered thee unto me, as a seditious per- 
son worthy of death. This was a vir- 
tual answer of our Lord's question, did 
others tell it thee of me? The question 
of Pilate which now follows, what hast 
thou done ? indicates very clearly that 
he placed little reliance on the truth of 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XVIII. 



447 



36 :y Jesus answered, ■ 31y king- 
dom is not of this world : if ray 
kingdom were of this world, then 
would my servants fight, that I 



ylTi. 6:13. 



the accusation made in Luke 23 : 2. It 
is as though he had said : 'the charge 
against you is so vague and indefinite, 
and appears so clearly to have been 
trumped up for the occasion, that I 
would fain learn from thine own lips 
what thou hast done, in order that I may 
have some understanding of the case.' 

36. With a frankness and fulness, 
such as he did not vouchsafe to Caia- 
phas or to Herod, when arraigned at 
their bar, cur Lord replies to the ques- 
tion of Pilate. He unfolds to him the 
nature of his kingdom. It was spiritual 
and not temporal, heavenly and not 
earthly. My kingdom. ' I have a king- 
dom which I have come to establish. 
The Jews were right in saying, that I 
claim to be Christ the King. But my 
kingdom is not of this world. It origi- 
nates not with men ; it has its seat in 
no regal city of earth. It is supported 
by no standing armies, such as give 
strength and security to earthly poten- 
tates. Unlike all human governments 
in its origin, principles, and means of 
supremacy, it is from above, and has 
its seat in the hearts and affections of 
men.' If my kingdom, &c. He conde- 
scends to argue the question with Pi- 
late, and convince him that his kingship 
is not one which should awaken the least 
apprehension on the part of the Roman 
authorities, or render him at all ame- 
nable to the civil tribunal. If he had 
been a temporal king, or had aspired to 
be one, there would have been opposi- 
tion and bloodshed, before he would 
have submitted to be thus dragged be- 
fore the Roman governor. But so far 
was this from being the case, he stood 
unarmed and alone before Pilate. Not 
an arm was lifted to rescue him. Xo 
bands of seditious men were roaming 
through the city or land, clamorously 
demanding his release, and threatening 
all manner of vengeance, if he received 



should not be delivered to the 
Jews : but now is my kingdom 
not from hence. 



a Da.2:44:& 



14; Lu. 12:14; ch. C:15;& 
8:15. 



any injury from his enemies. All was 
tranquil and peaceful. This showed 
that his kingdom was far other than 
his accusers had represented it to be. 
The argument is also a fortiori ; for if 
his servants did not fight to prevent 
his being delivered up to his enemies, 
much less Avould they imperil their 
lives to gain for him a kingdom. 
My servants. The pronoun is empha- 
tic, and therefore Christ does not de- 
ny that he had servants ; the denial 
relates to their fighting to prevent 
his deliverance to the Jews, as they 
would do, were his kingdom of this 
world. The word rendered servants, 
literally signifies attendants, ministers, 
to execute the will of the ruler. The 
word is employed in reference to the 
well-known fact, that the chief men 
and attendants of a king arc those up- 
on whose fidelity, in times of peril, he 
can most rely, and who, if firm and 
faithful, will rally around them their 
own servants and retainers, in defence 
of their king. So Stier says : " they 
are not merely subjects, but agents to 
maintain the royal authority." Would 
fight; or literally, would be fighting. 
Reference is had in the words delivered 
to the Jews, to his apprehension by the 
rulers and chief priests (Matt. 26 : 57 ; 
Mark 14 : 53 ; Luke 22 : 54 ; John 
18 : 13), and not to his being brought 
before the bar of Pilate. Stier, with 
Bengel, refers this to what is said in v. 
31. But if reference is had by way of 
warning to any act of Pilate, it must 
have been to that recorded in 19: 1; 
Matt. 27 : 26 ; Mark, 15 : 15. But now 
is, &c. An emphatic repetition of the 
clause, my kingdom is not of this world. 
The word now, is here a particle of 
transition. The idea of the Romanists, 
that now is temporal and antithetic to 
a future period when Christ's kingdom 
would be of this, as well as of the other 



448 



JOHN. 



[A, D. 33. 



37 Pilate therefore said unto 
him, Art thou a king then ? J e- 
sus answered, Thou sayest that 
I am a king. To this end was 
I horn, and for this cause came 



world, is absurd and inconsistent with 
the very nature of the kingdom which 
Christ here avows to be his. Nor can 
the particle translated now, have in 
this connection a temporal significa- 
tion. It is a particle of continuation 
or transition, marking the present con- 
dition of things, as things now are. 
The adverb hence, refers to this world. 
37. Art thou a king then ? Here 
John's narrative coincides with that of 
the Synoptic Evangelists. See Matt. 
27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3. 
Some expositors would remove the in- 
terrogation, and read, So then thou art 
a king. ' You confess that the charge 
made against you (Luke 23 : 2) is true.' 
But the interrogative is required not 
only by the original, but by v. 33 
(end), of which question this is the 
repetition, although with a sense some- 
what varied by the reply of Jesus to 
the previous interrogation. There was 
such a deep and hidden mystery in 
his words, that Pilate now proposes 
in earnest the question, Art thou a 
king then ? hoping to elicit something 
from him, which would throw light up- 
on his reply to the previous inquiry. 
Prof. Crosby remarks that, awakened 
by what Christ had just said, Pilate 
speaks for himself and not for the Jews. 
Alford finds in the emphatic thou, a j 
slight sarcasm. I would rather say 
that it was the expression of wonder 
that a person of such calm and digni- 
fied mien, giving such evidence of per- 
fect sanity, should speak of himself as 
a king, and yet not one whose kingdom 
was of this world. " Art thou who stand- 
est here before my bar, and bearest in 
thy person such marks of the bitter 
hatred of the Jews, and whose death 
they clamorously demand, a king, truly 
and really?" To this question, our 
Lord makes a prompt and direct reply, 
thou sayest, &c. This, according to Ori- j 
ental phraseology, was an emphatic af- 



I into the world, that I should 
bear witness unto the truth. 
Every one that a is of the truth 
heareth my voice. 

aCh. S:47;Uo. 3:19;&4:G. 

firmative. Had Pilate's question con- 
tained the sarcasm which Alford finds 
in it, our Lord would not thus have 
condescended to reply to it. That I 
am a king. The pronoun has a cor- 
responding emphasis with thou, in Pi- 
late's question. To this end was I born, 
&c. The language is that employed of 
natural birth, but there lies in the re- 
ply, a deep significancy which Pilate 
failed to discern. The words to this 
end, refer forward to the clause, that I 
should bear witness, &c. Was I born a 
king. The deeper sense is, did I be- 
come incarnate. This is more clearly 
indicated by the next clause, came Un- 
to the world, which, beyond all doubt, 
refers to his preexistent nature. The 
pronoun in was I born, is also em- 
phatic, and contrasts the high dignity 
of his mission as a witness-bearer to 
the truth, with the thou of Pilate, 
which had reference to him only as a 
poor, maltreated prisoner at the bar of 
justice. To this end, and for this 
cause, are the same in the original, and 
show that the clauses, was I born, and 
came I into the world, refer to the same 
general fact of his incarnation, the 
first referring to his complete manhood 
as born of a woman, the second, to his 
supreme divinity, as having come from 
above into the world. His humanity 
and divinity are therefore both taught 
in this great utterance to Pilate. It 
is noticed by Stier, that in the hear- 
ing of Pilate, a heathen, he does not 
say, sent into the world, but simply, 
came. That denotes the object or pur- 
pose of his coming into the world. 
Bear witness, i. e. reveal, make known, 
declare. To the truth. The article 
gives this the highest objectivity. It is 
not, so far as the form of expression is 
concerned, truth as existing in God or 
his works, but as an abstraction, by 
and complete of itself. " He puts the 
truth in the place of the living God, 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XYIII. 



449 



38 Pilate saitli unto him, "What I Jews, and saith unto them, b I find 
is truth ? And when he had said in him no fault at all. 
this, he went out again unto the 6 Mat 2T . 24 Lil n . t ch M . , 6 _ 



and as if above Himself." Stier. But 
this is only to present his office work 
more clearly and emphatically to Pilate's 
mind. How could he reveal the truth, 
unless it existed subjectively in him- 
self? If resident in him, then he was 
the truth, as he declared himself to be, 
in 14: 6. The bearing witness to the 
truth was then the revelation of him- 
self, as the Messiah, sent of God to ac- 
complish the salvation of men. Thus 
briefly, and in words comporting with 
the place and occasion, did our Lord 
vouchsafe to make himself known to 
Pilate, in his complex character of God- 
man, whose mission it was to bring men 
back to the knowledge of the truth, 
which it was his province to reveal. 
Every one that is, &c. This shows that 
the kingly dominion of Jesus was in 
the domain of truth, that his followers 
were those who received the truth in 
the love of it, and that from all who 
were the subjects of truth, would be 
rendered to him the most implicit obe- 
dience. Every one. There is no ex- 
ception. All his subjects are included 
in this great declaration of their fealty 
to him, as King and Revealer of the 
truth. Of the truth, is a varied form 
of expression for of God (3 : 4T). It 
refers not to those who have previ- 
ously known the truth — for there are 
none who know it until taught of God 
— but to those whose hearts are pre- 
pared from above to seek it sincerely, 
and when found, to obey conscien- 
tiously all its requisitions. Hcareih my 
voice, i. e. receives my testimony, and 
thus arrives at a knowledge of the 
truth. 

3S. "This word of Jesus was evi- 
dently intended to attract Pilate him- 
self, and to induce him to avow himself 
a subject of Christ as a friend of truth.'' 
Olshausen. The supreme indifference, 
if not contempt, manifested in the re- ! 
ply of Pilate, shows that the offer so 
graciously made him by Jesus failei to 
awaken in him any desire to besome I 



a subject of this kingdom of truth. 
What is truth. Pilate omits the article, 
as better suited to express his contempt 
of all philosophical theories on this 
subject, with which he doubtless clas- 
sed the words of Jesus. The inquiry is 
not one of sarcasm, as some expositors 
teach, but of indifference amounting 
almost to disgust, at any attempt to de- 
line truth. If we take into view, the 
numerous and fine-spun theories and 
speculations on the gooel and the true, 
which had occupied the attention of 
philosophers for so many centuries, and 
which led to no beneficial or practical 
result, we cannot wonder at the indiffer- 
ence and apathy on all such questions, 
which had taken possession of the 
Gentile mind at the coming of our 
Lord. But Pilate had no excuse there- 
from, for rejecting so contemptuously 
the testimony which Jesus bore on this 
occasion to the truth. He could not 
but have heard of his wondrous mir- 
acles and the doctrines which he taught. 
Such a man, filling as he did the whole 
country with the fame of his marvellous 
works, could not have eluded the watch- 
ful and jealous eye of the Roman au- 
thorities. Xow this wonderful person 
stands at his bar as a criminal, and pro- 
fesses himself to have come from a pre- 
existent state of glory into this world, 
in order to teach men the very thing of 
which they stand in such infinite need, 
the truth, or in other words, the nature 
and perfections of God, and the way of 
salvation through the death of His Son. 
It was the height of criminal stupidity 
for him to turn away from such an ex- 
pounder of the truth, as though he 
were no more competent to define it, 
than the thousands of heathen philoso- 
phers, who had sought to sound its 
depths and explore its domain by life- 
long and anxious study. What is truth, 
is not here so much a question as a 
skeptical ejaculation, evincing Pilate's 
supreme contempt for every speculation 
of this sort. It served also as an inti- 



450 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



39 c But ye have a custom, that 
I should release unto you one at 
the passover : will ye therefore 
that I release unto you the King 
of the Jews ? 

40 d Then cried they all again, 
saying, Not this man, but Barab- 
bas. e Now Barabbas was a rob- 
ber. 

o Mat. 27: 15: Ma. 15 : 6; Lu. 23: 17. 
d Ac. 3 : 14. e Lu. 23 : 19. 

mation on the part of the governor, 
that the subject was to be pursued no 
further. The conversation had taken 
too serious a turn to suit his pleasure. 
He therefore waits for no reply, but 
immediately passes out of the preto- 
rium, in order to express to the Jews 
his conviction of the innocence of Jesus. 
I would not go so far as Alford, and 
find in these words of Pilate a hidden 
negation, that there is any such thing 
as truth ; but I would rather find in 
them a weariness and disgust, at any 
conversation which had so fruitless an 
object, as the discovery and investiga- 
tion of truth. When he had said this ; 
literally, having said this. Reference is 
had in again, to his previous coming 
forth from the pretorium in v. 29. 
Unto the Jews, i. e. the chief priests and 
rulers who headed the mob, at this time 
doubtless beginning to gather in large 
numbers around the tribunal of Pilate. 
The pronoun /, stands in emphatic con- 
trast with you, i. e. the chief priests 
and rulers, who had made the serious 
charges against Jesus. Alford says : 
" Pilate mocks both — the Witness to 
the Truth, and the haters of the Truth." 
The words at all, are unnecessarily 
italicized in our common version. See 
N. on 19 : 11. 

39. John now passes over the send- 
ing of Jesus to Herod, and all that 
which is related in Matt. 27: 12-14; 
Mark 15 : 3-5 ; Luke 23 : 4-16, and pro- 
ceeds to record the unavailing effort 
made by Pilate to secure the release of 
Jesus, in accordance with the custom, 
that, at the feast, one criminal at least 
was to be released (Luke 23 : 17). Ye 



CHAPTER XIX. 

THEN "Pilate therefore took 
Jesus, and scourged him. 

2 And the soldiers platted a 
crown of thorns, and put it on 
his head, and they put on him a 
purple robe, 

3 And said, Hail, King of the 
Jews ! and they smote him with 
their hands. 

a Mat. 20 : 19 ; & 27 : 26 ; Ma. 15 : 15 ; Lu. IS : 33. 



have a custom. This shows that Pilate 
did not establish the custom here refer- 
red to. See N. on Matt. 27 : 15. Alford 
refers his readers to the four accounts 
of this incident, as an instructive speci- 
men of the variations in the Gospel 
narratives. Will ye therefore, &c. See 
Ns. on Matt. 27 : 17 ; Mark 15 : 9. TJie 
King of the Jews, is spoken with con- 
temptuous reference, not so much to 
Jesus himself, whose innocence and 
dignified bearing had awakened in no 
ordinary degree the sympathy and re- 
spect of Pilate, as to the political 
degradation of the Jews, who^re taunt- 
ed as having no king, save one who 
was clearly a religious enthusiast, and 
to be regarded as hardly in his right 
mind. 

40. Then cried they all, &c. The rea- 
son for this outburst in favor of Bar- 
abbas, is found in Matt. 27 : 20 ; Mark 
15 : 11. Again. See Mark 15: 8. This 
man; literally, this, the pronoun being 
used in its contemptuous sense. See 
N. on Matt. 26 : 61, where our trans- 
lators have employed the word felloio, 
to express this idea of contempt. Barab- 
bas was a robber. See N. on Matt. 27 : 
16. This concise and partially implied 
contrast between Jesus and Barabbas, 
is more fully brought out in Acts 3:14. 
Luthardt after Krafft remarks : " thus 
was Jesus the goat upon which the 
Lord's lot fell, to be offered for a sin 
offering (Levit. 16 : 5-10)." 

CHAPTER XIX. 
1-3. Pilate delivers up Jesus to 
death. He is scourged and mocked. 
Jerusalem. Sixth day of the Week. 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIX. 



451 



4 Pilate therefore went forth 
again, and saith unto them. Be- 
hold, I bring Lim forth to you, 
6 that ye may know that I find 
no fault in him. 

See Xs. on Matt. 27 : 26-30; Mark 15 : 
15-19. John is here more concise than 
the other Evangelists, but nevertheless 
groups together all the principal in- 
cidents. The word therefore, refers to 
the sentence of death, which Pilate 
in accordance with the persistent de- 
mand of the Jews, had passed upon 
Jesus. See Luke 23 : 24. Scourged him. 
See X. on Matt. 27 : 26. Tlie soldiers. 
One of the six cohorts allowed to the 
Roman procurators of Judea, was sta- 
tioned at Jerusalem, the remaining five 
at Cesarca. It is not improbable that, 
on such great and exciting occasions as 
the passover, which more than any 
other religious feast awakened the fire 
of liberty in the soul of the Jew, some 
of the soldiers were drawn oft" from the 
garrison at Ccsarea, and put on guard 
at the metropolis. See X. on Matt. 27 : 
27. Plaited a crown, kc. See X. on 
Matt. 27 T 29. A purple robe. In Mat- 
thew 27 : 28 (on which see Xotc), it is 
called a scarlet robe. The difference is 
harmonized and illustrated by the fre- 
quent interchange in our own language 
of the colors purple, red, and crimson. 
On their mock address, hail, King of 
the Jews ! sec X. on Matt. 27 : 29. Smote 
him with their hands; literally, gave 
him blows or slaps. See X. on 18 : 22. 
Various kinds of blows were given him. 
Those upon the thorny crown were 
doubtless inflicted with the reed, caught 
from his hand in which it had been 
placed in mock royalty, as a blow there 
could not have been given with the 
naked hand. See X. on Matt. 27 : 30. 

4-1 G. Pilate again seeks to re- 
lease Jesus. Jerusalem. Sixth day 
of the Week. This portion of the 
trial is found only in John, and is a 
most valuable addition to the sacred 
record, inasmuch as it contains the 
reiterated affirmation of Pilate as to 
the innocence of Jesus. It would 
seem from this that the governor, hop- 



5 Then came Jesus forth, wear- 
ing the crown of thorns, and the 
purple robe. And Pilate saith 
unto them, Behold the man ! 

b Oh. IS : SS ; ver. 6. 

ing that the malice of the Jews was 
sated by the dreadful scourging inflicted 
upon Jesus within the pretorium, made 
another and most earnest appeal in. his 
behalf, solemnly averring that he found 
no fault in him. But all was of no 
avail, and we have in v. 16, the result 
of his weakness, in not finnly interpos- 
ing the shield of justice for the protec- 
tion of one of whose innocence he was 
so thoroughly persuaded. 

4, 5. Therefore or then, marking the 
progress of the narrative, and referring 
to the plan by which Pilate hoped to 
effect the release of Jesus. See Luke 
23 : 16, 22. Went forth from the pre- 
torium. Again. He had several times 
in this trial come forth to expostulate 
with the Jews in behalf of Jesus. See 
18 : 29, 38; Luke 23 : 13. Behold 1 
bring him forth, &c. Pilate announces 
his purpose to bring forth Jesus, in 
order thereby to give a stronger ex- 
pression of his conviction of his inno- 
cence of the charges made against him. 
Confession of guilt was usually ex- 
torted from criminals by this dreadful 
scourging, which they underwent pre- 
liminary to their crucifixion. Xo such 
confession had Jesus made ; and Pilate 
brings him forth, in order that they may 
see in his lacerated and bleeding per- 
son, that this evidence of his guilt was 
not wanting through any leniency on the 
part of those who scourged the pris- 
oner. As he announces his intention, 
Jesus appears with the crown of thorns 
and purple robe. The exclamation, be- 
hold the man! is one of appeal to the 
sympathy and compassion of the multi- 
tude. It is as though he had said : ' see 
how his body is mangled with scourging, 
and bruised by the blows of the soldiers. 
Is not this sufficient to answer the ends 
of justice ? Can you fear his influence 
with the people, after such public degra- 
dation ? ' 

6. The chief priests and officers ; lit- 



452 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



6 °When the chief priests 
therefore and officers saw him, 
they cried out, saying, Crucify 
him, crucify him. Pilate saith 
unto them, Take ye him, and cru- 



c Ac. 3 : 13. 



d Le. 24 : 16. 



erally, the officers (belonging to them), 
i. e. the chief priests and their attend- 
ants. These persons led the people, 
in their fierce and continuous cry that 
Jesus should be crucified. There was 
no pity in their hearts for the bleeding 
and mangled victim. Nothing would 
satisfy them but his death, and that in 
the most cruel form which human 
ingenuity had devised. Take ye him, 
&c. In consequence of the Avarning 
message of his wife (see Matt. 27 : 19), 
and other considerations which had 
forced themselves upon him during this 
strange trial, Pilate wished to rid him- 
self of all responsibility or participation 
in the matter ; and now half in earnest, 
although knowing the illegality of his 
offer, and with the bitterest irony 
through irritation at the blood-thirsty 
malice of the Jews, offers to deliver 
the prisoner into their hands to be 
crucified, if they so wished. He re- 
peats with increased bitterness the taunt 
in 18 : 31. In order to understand the 
point of sarcasm, it should be remem- 
bered that their charge against Jesus 
was a political one ; and had they cruci- 
fied him for that alleged offence, it 
would have been a tacit acknowledg- 
ment in the eyes of the nation and 
world, that Roman rule in Judea was 
just and proper, and therefore they of 
their own accord had put Jesus to 
death for his resistance to rightful 
law and authority. The only alternative 
was to let Jesus go unpunished, and 
this their hatred of him would not 
permit them to entertain for a moment. 
It was this dilemma in which they 
were placed by Pilate's strange offer 
to deliver the matter into their hands, 
which led them to bring forward 
against Jesus the charge of blasphemy, 
which by their law was punishable 
with death. Thus in whatever way, or 



cify him : for I find no fault in 
him. 

7 The Jews answered him, 
d We have a law, and by our law 
he ought to die, because e he made 
himself the Son of God. 

eMt. 26: 65; eh.. 5? 18; &10:33. 

by whosesoever hands his death was 
effected, they could allege as the rea- 
son, his violation of Jewish law, and 
thus free themselves from such a taunt 
as Pilate had just uttered, of their 
putting a man to death for rebellion 
against the Romans. In thus shifting 
the accusation from a political to a re- 
ligious offence, they were doubtless 
actuated also by the fear, that Pilate 
through conviction of the innocence 
of Jesus, would refuse to pronounce 
sentence of death upon him. In order 
that he might not escape from their 
hands, they resorted therefore to the 
charge of blasphemy, although they 
well knew that Pilate could take no 
cognizance whatever of such an of- 
fence against Jewish lav/, even if he 
were inclined thus to do. But con- 
sistency of conduct is not to be sought 
for in men, urged on to the accom- 
plishment of their plans by such in- 
furiated malice and rage. 

7. We have a law, &c. See Levit. 
24 : 16. Webster and Wilkinson find the 
reference in Deut. 13 : 1-5, inasmuch 
as cursing and reviling the name of 
Jehovah is not charged upon him, 
but the holding up of himself as one 
worthy of the worship of the true 
and only God. " It was when Jesus 
claimed the attributes of Deity, that 
the High Priest condemned him for 
blasphemy. 1 ' See Matthew 26 : 63-66 ; 
Luke 22 : 69-71. The pronoun we, 
is put in emphatic contrast with the 
yc of Pilate. The pronoun sarcasti- 
cally pronounced by him, represented 
a poor, down-trodden people, who had 
in their highest court of judicature no 
power of life and death, and who were 
obliged to sue to a Roman tribunal, for 
the power to rid themselves of one 
whose death they had predetermined. 
The we of the reply, represented the 



A.D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIX. 



453 



8 When Pilate therefore heard I ment hall, and 
that saving, he was the more 
afraid ; 

9 And went again into the judg- 



chosea people of God, whose great 
lawgiver Moses, hundreds of years 
before the founding of imperial Rome, 
had given them a code of laws, one 
of which, the person arraigned at 
Pilate's bar had broken in declaring 
himself to be the Son of God. All 
the pride and haughtiness of the Jew- 
found expression in the words, ice have 
a laic, &c. He ought to die as a trans- 
gressor. The next clause denotes in 
what his transgression consisted. The 
implication is, that if found innocent 
by Pilate of the charge of sedition, he 
ought nevertheless to be put to death 
for having violated Jewish law. He 
made himself, <ic He gave himself 
out to be, or pretended that he was 
the Son of God. See Matt. 26 : 63-66 ; 
Luke 22 : 69-71. That Christ's assump- 
tion in the Jews' estimation was some- 
thing more than that of the Messiah- 
ship, is very evident ; for if the claim 
to that office and dignity implied 
blasphemy, then the assumption of 
his rightful office by the true Messiah, 
whoever he might be, would lay him 
open to the charge of blasphemy. Had 
their view of the Messiah been correct 
and scriptural, they would have seen 
the fitness and truthfulness of the 
claim of Jesus to be the Son of God. 
But regarding that personage merely 
as a temporal king, they lost sight of \ 
his divine mission and character, and 
were filled with pious horror, that . 
Jesus should assume to be the Son of 
God. 

S. At the mention of this extraor- ! 
dinary claim of Jesus, the import of I 
which he did not understand, save that 
it was a claim to something superhu- j 
man, Pilate is seized with new terror, ■ 
and makes more strenuous exertions to i 
deliver Jesus. He therefore reenters 
the pretorium, and again questions Je- ' 
sus in regard to his origin and person. ! 
That saying, namely, that Jesus had j 
given himself out to be God's Son. i 



saith unto Jesus, 
Whence art thou? •'But Jesus 
gave him no answer. 

/Is. S3: 7: Mt. 27:12. U. 



Was the more afraid. That this fear 
had reference to the person of Jesus, 
I there hardly can be a doubt, even 
if it were not so directly implied in 
j the following verse. At the very be- 
1 ginning of the trial (18 : 29), Pilate had 
evidently experienced a strange sensa- 
tion of awe in the presence of Jesus. 
This was increased by the mysterious 
words of our Lord in regard to Ids 
invisible and unearthly kingdom (IS : 36, 
37), and still more by the strange 
dream of his wife which was reported 
to him (Matt. 27 : 10). Xow when he 
hears that this singular man, whom he 
I had just before caused to be so cruelly 
[ scourged and insulted, had given him- 
self out to be the Son of God, with 
new and increased alarm he hurries 
| him into the pretorium, and again 
■ seeks to elicit from him some account 
; of his origin and character, which will 
! clear up the mystery with which he is 
invested. 

9. Went again, &c. The vacillating 
timidity of Pilate challenges the scorn 
and contempt of every one who reads 
this narration. He had only to put 
forth the energy and courage, after- 
ward manifested in the true Roman 
spirit by the chief captain Lysias 
(Acts 23 : 23-33), to rescue Jesus from 
his blood-thirsty enemies. But he 
chose a time-serving policy, and thus 
covered his name in all subsequent 
time with the blackest infamy. Whence 
art thou? This does not refer to his 
earthly parents, the place of his birth, 
or the region of country in which he 
had been brought up. He knew from 
what province Jesus had come (Luke 
23 : 6, 7) ; and to suppose that he merely 
wished the name of his earthly parents, 
would be utterly at variance with the 
supernatural terror which had now 
taken possession of Pilate's mind. 
Equally erroneous is the idea of some, 
that Pilate's fear arose from the supposi- 
tion that Jesus might be a divine God, 



454 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



10 Then saith Pilate unto him, 
Speakest thou not unto me ? 
knowest thou not that I have 
power to crucify thee, and have 
power to release thee ? 

11 Jesus answered, g Thou 

or son of some one of the gods, ac- 
cording to the teachings of heathen 
mythology. The higher and more in- 
telligent class of Komans, at the time 
of Christ's advent, gave no credence 
to these myths, and the whole scope 
and tenor of the Jewish religion, in 
which Jesus had been educated, was 
embraced in the great doctrine, that 
there was but one God. If Jesus a 
Jew, therefore, gave himself out to be 
the Son of God, Pilate well knew that he 
claimed to be nothing less than the Son 
of the supreme Deity. His question must 
therefore be attributed to a feeling of 
awe in regard to the person of Jesus ; 
an indefinable and mysterious impres- 
sion, that he was something more than 
human, and a desire to hear from his 
own lips something of his being, 
origin, and character. The form of the 
question whence art thou, is more em- 
phatic than whence art, the usual col- 
loquial form. But Jesus gave him no 
answer. To the previous questions of 
the governor (18:33, 35), our Lord 
returned a prompt reply. They were 
such as Pilate's office of Judge, gave 
him a right to propose. But now his 
motive is not to learn the facts of the 
case, in order that he may pronounce 
a righteous judgment; for in scourg- 
ing Jesus preparatory to his being de- 
livered up to be crucified, he had vir- 
tually condemned him to death. The 
manifest design of his inquiry, was to 
dispel the fear and apprehension which 
had taken such mysterious possession 
of his mind, and therefore our Lord 
returns to his interrogation no answer. 
Enough had already been said to con- 
vince Pilate, had his mind been open 
to conviction, that Jesus was no or- 
dinary man; and now had his divine 
origin been fully and explicitly af- 
firmed, it would probably have been 
received with expressions of scorn and 



couldest have no power at all 
against me, except it were given 
thee from above : therefore he 
that delivered me unto thee hath 
the greater sin. 

g Lu. 22 : 53 ; ch. 7 : 30. 

unbelief from the governor. Alford 
remarks, that " our Lord's silence, was 
the most emphatic answer to all who 
had ears to hear it ; — was a reference 
to what He had said before (18 : 37), 
and so a witness to His divine origin. 
Would any mere man, of true and up- 
right character, have refused an answer 
to such a question, so put ? " 

10. The haughty, unsubmissive spirit 
of Pilate now manifests itself. Irri- 
tated by the silence of Jesus, he for- 
gets the admonition of his wife (Luke 
23 : 19), and the mysterious and alarm- 
ing announcement of the divine Son- 
ship of Jesus (v. 7), and in all the 
pride of a Roman governor possessed 
of arbitrary authority, boasts of his 
power to put Jesus to death or set 
him at liberty. This shows his indiffer- 
ence to the claims of justice, whenever 
they conflicted with his self-interest; 
and how devoid he was of a sense 
of obligation to pronounce righteous 
judgment, irrespective of the conse- 
quences. Speakest thou not to me ? 
literally, tome speakest thou not? The 
emphatic position of the pronoun indi- 
cates surprise, that a prisoner at his 
bar should presume to maintain silence, 
when interrogated by one possessed of 
such power and station as Pilate. Al- 
ford finds the implied idea, 'thou hast, 
I know, refused to reply to others be- 
fore.' But this does not comport so 
well with the haughty pride which 
characterizes these words of the gov- 
ernor; and it is quite doubtful, wheth- 
er he had been so minutely informed 
of the circumstances of our Lord's 
examination before the high priest, as 
this reference of Alford would seem to 
imply. The w r ord power, would be 
better rendered authority, the posses-* 
sion of power rather than its exercise 
being referred to. See N. on Luke 
4:36. 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XIX. 



455 



12 And from thenceforth Pilate 
sought to release him : but the 
Jews cried out, sa}'ing, h If thou 
let this man go, thou art not Ce- 
ll. In admirable keeping with the 
declaration made in 18 : 36, our Lord 
replies to Pilate, that he has no power 
except that given him from above (i. e. 
from God). If Jesus was a king in the 
high sense of his declaration in IS : 36, 
he was the very Being who gave the 
Roman governor the power, of which 
he so vaunts himself. His reply is there- 
fore a rebuke to the pride of Pilate, 
and an answer to the question, tohence 
art thou ? The words at all, are im- 
properly italicized in our common ver- 
sion, inasmuch as they are contained in 
the original. Against me. The preposi- 
tion signifies down upon, here with hos- 
tile intent. It were given thee (to have) 
from above. The explanation which re- 
fers from above, to the power lodged in 
Pilate's hand by the Roman emperor, 
or the giving up of Jesus to him by the 
Sanhedrim, is too absurd to merit any 
notice. The gravity of the occasion, 
and the effect which the reply of Jesus 
had on Pilate (see v. 12), forbid any 
reference to an earthly source of power. 
From above refers most unquestionably 
to God's abode, and this continued 
reference of Jesus to the unseen world 
where his kingship belonged, must have 
impressed Pilate more and more with 
the extraordinary, if not superhuman, 
character of the man who stood at his 
bar of judgment. The verb were giv- 
en, has in the original a periphrastic 
form, the participle of which is put in 
the neuter gender, and refers geneti- 
cally to every kind of power and au- 
thority. There is in the original a 
sort of emphatic paronomasia in vjhence 
(v. 10) and from above, pothen — ano- 
then, which must have forced itself 
upon Pilate's mind, as a reply to his 
question. Therefore or on account of 
this, refers to the fact, that Pilate's pow- 
er over Jesus had been through divine 
appointment. He that delivered me, 
&c. There can be no doubt of the 
reference here to Caiaphas, and by 



sar's friend : l whosoever maketh 
himself a king speaketh against 
Cesar. 



7tLu. 23:2, 



i Ac. 17 : T. 



implication to the whole Sanhedrim. 
The reference to Judas wdiich some 
find in the words, is out of the ques- 
tion. He betrayed Jesus to the chief 
priests, but had no direct connection 
with the act of accusing him at Pilate's 
bar. See N. on Matt. 27 : 3. Hath the 
greater sin. The sin of Caiaphas in 
delivering up Jesus to Pilate, is here 
expressly declared to be one of greater 
enormity, than that of Pilate in con- 
demning him to death. The reason is 
found in the fact brought to view in 
the preceding clause, that Pilate acted 
in the discharge of his official duty, 
and by virtue of a power, which like 
all human governments was ordained 
of God (Rom. 13:1). But Caiaphas 
of his own will and with the most 
gratuitous and deliberate malice, had 
perverted all truth and judgment, and 
accused him to Pilate as one to be 
judged worthy of death. Pilate through 
want of moral courage, became their 
tool ; and in yielding to their clamor- 
ous demand for the death of Jesus, 
most grossly abused that power which 
had been given him from above, and 
therefore was guilty of a great sin. 
In estimating also the comparative 
guilt of the agents of the crucifixion 
of our Lord, it must not be forgotten, 
that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim act- 
ed in face of testimony to the divine 
character and mission of Jesus, which 
had never been vouchsafed to the 
Roman governor. It is remarkable, 
however, that although Christ himself 
declares that the sin of Caiaphas tran- 
scended that of Pilate, yet the latter 
so violated every principle of jus- 
tice in surrendering Jesus to his ene- 
mies, that he has in every age been 
the object of the deepest execration 
of mankind, as the judicial murderer 
of the Saviour of the world. If 
this be the righteous sentiment of all 
ages, in regard to one whose prin- 
cipal fault was his moral cowardice, 



456 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



13 When Pilate therefore heard 
that saying, he brought Jesus 
forth, and sat down in the judg- 



how vastly more worthy of repro- 
bation is the conduct of the high 
priest and the Sanhedrim, who for 
months had been conspiring against Je- 
sus, and whose malice could be satisfied 
with nothing short of his ignominious 
death. 

12. From thenceforth, i. e. from the 
time when our Lord uttered these deep 
and significant words. A better trans- 
lation would perhaps be, on account of 
this. See N. 6 : 66. Pilate was not 
only convinced of the innocence of Je- 
sus, but there was a calm and conscious 
dignity in his reply, so unlike that of 
criminals still smarting from the cruel 
lash (see N. on Matt. 27 : 26), that his 
feelings of awe towards him were awak- 
ened anew, and he makes one more 
feeble effort to save him from his ene- 
mies. This proving ineffectual, he in- 
terposes no further delay, but proceeds 
to give sentence for him to be crucified. 
But the Jeics, &c. This shows that Pi- 
late in his vain attempt to release Jesus, 
had come forth again from the pretori- 
um, within which our Lord yet remain- 
ed after the conversation which had 
just closed. This man ; literally, this. 
See N. on 18 : 40. Thou art not Cesar'' s 
friend. This was a master stroke of 
policy, doubtless originating with the 
high priest or some leading member of 
the Sanhedrim. The multitude caught 
up and fiercely repeated the sentiment, 
drowning the voice of Pilate, which was 
feebly raised in behalf of Jesus, and ef- 
fectually deterring him from any further 
efforts to effect his release. Had he 
been inculpated to the Roman emperor 
by the chief men of the nation, as evin- 
cing a want of fidelity to his imperial 
master, in his readiness to pardon one 
who was aspiring to kingly authority 
and fomenting rebellion among so tur- 
bulent a people as the Jews, he would 
have lost his place, and probably his 
life. This would have been the more 
probable from the cruel, jealous, and 
suspicious temper of Tiberius Cesar, 
who was then emperor. Whosoever 



ment seat in a place that is called 
the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, 
G-abbatha. 

maketh himself (i. e. setteth himself up 
to be) a king, substantiates the charge 
made against Pilate, in case he should 
let Jesus go unpunished. The senti- 
ment is this : In making himself a king, 
Jesus had rebelled against Cesar, and 
given utterance to treasonable words 
(speaketh against Cesar). If Pilate fail- 
ed to take cognizance of this, he would 
expose himself to the charge of com- 
plicity with Jesus, or at least of such 
a lack of zeal and energy in bringing 
him to punishment, as would evince that 
he was no true friend of Cesar. This 
reasoning would have been correct, had 
not their premises been utterly false. 
They well knew that Jesus had never 
set himself up as a king in rebellion 
against Cesar, nor uttered a treasona- 
ble word against the civil authorities. 
Their charge, therefore, was one which 
they themselves knew to be false and 
trumped up for the furtherance of their 
vile purpose. 

13. When Pilate therefore heard; 
literally, Pilate then having heard. The 
participial construction throws the em- 
phasis on the verbs which follow. Tliat 
saying, i. e. the charge of disloyalty to 
Cesar, which they threatened to bring 
against the governor. Such apprehen- 
sions of peril were awakened by this 
threat, that he hesitated no longer, but 
delivered Jesus to be crucified. He 
brought Jesus forth, through the agency 
of some officer or attendant. It is quite 
unlikely that he put himself in the way 
of another interview with Jesus, from 
whom he might expect some utterance 
which would awaken anew his fears, and 
cause him to vacillate in his purpose to 
bring the matter to a close by deliver- 
ing him up to death. He sat down, kc. 
He took his seat, as a judge about to 
pass a final sentence. The Pavement. 
This is supposed to have been an ele- 
vated platform, having a tessellated 
pavement, on which the judgment- 
seat was placed. That it was raised 
somewhat from the ground seems evi- 
dent from the Hebrew name Gabbatha, 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIX. 



457 



14 And * it was the preparation 
of the passover, and about the 
sixth hour : and he saith unto 
the Jews, Behold your King ! 

15 But they cried out, Away 

h Mt. 27 : 62. 



signifying a back or ridge, and having 
reference perhaps to the convexity of 
the pavement on which the seat of 
judgment was placed. According to 
Suetonius, such a pavement was carried 
about on his expeditions by Julius Ce- 
sar. 

14. It teas the preparation of the pass- 
over (i. e. the passover sabbath). Our 
Lord was crucified on Friday, the day 
preceding the Jewish sabbath. See 
N. on v. 31. The time of preparation 
for the sabbath, at first embraced the 
hours immediately preceding the sun- 
set, at which time, according to Jewish 
reckoning, the sabbath commenced. 
But in process of time the epithet 
preparation, was applied to the whole 
day preceding the sabbath, and such is 
its extended use here. See X. on Matt. 
27 : 62. This verse therefore fixes 
beyond all dispute, the day of the week 
on which our Lord was crucified. About 
the sixth hour, i. e. at noon. For the 
reconciliation of this with the time of 
Jesus' crucifixion, as given by the oth- 
er Evangelists, see N. on Mark 15 : 24. 
Behold your King ! It is no longer be- 
hold the man! to excite their sympathy 
and effect his release. ■ Every emotion 
of tenderness, every principle of honor 
and justice, is now lost in the desire to j 
evince his loyalty to Cesar, and shield j 
himself from an accusation like that 
threatened in v. 12. Behold your King ! 
* See the miserable fate of every usurper 
of kingly authority under Roman rule. 
Thus do I prove my fidelity to Cesar. 
This is my vindication from any charge 
of disloyalty which my enemies may 
make against me.' Some expositors 
find in this exclamation of Pilate, the 
same vein of sarcasm which character- 
izes much that he has previously said 
to the Jews during this trial. Gerlach 
says: "He seeks to avenge himself 
throughout on the Jews, mocking them 

Yol, m,— 20 



with him, away with him, cruci- 
fy him. Pilate saith unto them, 
Shall I crucify your King ? The 
chief priests answered, / We have 
no king but Cesar. 

I Ge. 49 : 10. 

in every way." Such also is the view 
of Tholuck, Olshausen, and Alford. In 
all that Pilate says in this connection, 
Stier finds a strange admixture of com- 
passion, feai-, mockery, hard to define, 
but perfectly consistent with the con- 
flict in his mind between the awe and 
reverence which he felt for Jesus, and 
his fear of being called to account by 
the Roman emperor, if he released him 
against the will of the Jews. I cannot 
but think, however, that both here and 
in the title which he affixed to the 
cross (v. 19), his principal aim was to 
clear himself of all suspicion of treach- 
ery or lukewarmness in the service of 
his imperial master. With this there 
was doubtless also a desire to taunt the 
Jews, who had greatly irritated him in 
their persistent determination to com- 
pass the death of Jesus. 

15. An infuriated cry now breaks 
forth from the whole multitude, that 
Jesus should immediately be led forth 
to be crucified. Away with him, &c. 
The original is expressive of the most 
concentrated rage and hate : take away, 
take away ; away, away, bear him off 
to the cross. Crucify him. Some 
used one form of expression, and 
some another. Their loud and infuri- 
ated cries evinced their determination 
to compass their bloody purpose, and 
extinguished all hope on the part of the 
governor, of being able to save Jesus. 
Shall I crucify, &c. "When their rage 
had so exhausted itself, that Pilate's 
voice could be heard, he taunts the 
Jews with demanding the crucifixion 
of their own king. He retorts with 
the bitterest sarcasm the charge of 
disloyalty to his royal master, which 
the Jews threatened to make in v. 12. 
The interrogative form gives keenness 
to the irony, as though he had charged 
them with being a most singularly dis- 
loyal people, to thus clamorously and 






458 



JOHN, 



[A. D. 83. 



16 m Then delivered lie him 
therefore unto them to be cruci- 
fied. And they took Jesus and 
led him away. 

17 H " And he bearing his 
cross "went forth into a place 

m Mt. 27 : 26, SI ; Ma. 15 : 15 ; Lu. 23 : 24. 
n Mt. 27 : 81, 33 ; Ma. 15 : 21, 22 ; Lu. 23 : 26, 83 

persistently demand the crucifixion of 
their own king. The Jews are quick 
to discern the point of the sarcasm, 
and seek to parry its force by an 
avowal, which the lowest peasant in 
Galilee would have scorned to make, 
namely, that they had no king but Ce- 
sar. To such a depth of degradation 
did these chief men of the nation de- 
scend, in their hellish desire to rid 
themselves of Jesus. ""When this an- 
swer was elicited from the chief priests, 
Pilate felt that on the one hand the 
humiliation of the Jews, which was his 
revenge, was complete, and on the 
other, no excuse was left him for re- 
leasing Jesus, lest he should appear 
less zealous for the emperor than they 
■were." Webster and Wilkinson. Many 
of those who made this degrading con- 
fession, miserably perished afterward 
at the siege of Jerusalem in open re- 
bellion against the Roman emperor. 

16. Then delivered, &c. Afford thinks 
that the scourging spoken of by Mat- 
thew and Mark here took place, or was 
at least renewed, the former one not 
being that customary before execution, 
but conceded by Pilate to the mob in 
hope of satisfying them. But it seems 
quite evident, that our Lord was 
scourged but once, and that after it 
took place, a new hope sprung up in 
Pilate's breast, that he could effect his 
release, by showing him to the multitude, 
and exciting their pity in view of his 
sufferings. Although therefore Mat- 
thew and Mark say, that " when Pilate 
had scourged Jesus he delivered him to 
be crucified," this does not conflict 
with the recorded fact, that he sus- 
pended the final sentence a few mo- 
ments, in order to make one more 
effort to effect the release of Jesus. 
Unto them, refers in sense to the Jews, 



called the place of a skull, which 
is called in the Hebrew Golgotha : 
18 Where they crucified him, 
and two others with him, on 
either side one, and Jesus in the 
midst. 

o Nil. 15 : 36 ; He. 13 : 42. 

but in fact to the soldiers, who thence- 
forward were the tools and instruments 
of the priests and rulers to mock and 
torture Jesus. They took; literally, 
they took or received from Pilate, who 
now judicially surrendered him up to 
the soldiers to be crucified. Led him 
away from the pretorium to crucify him 
(Matthew and Mark). 

17. He bearing his (literally his own) 
cross. This is peculiar to John, and 
shows that at first, according to custom, 
the cross was laid upon Jesus, but, 
when weak and exhausted by his pre- 
vious sufferings, he was sinking beneath 
its weight, they compelled Simon of 
Cyrene to bear it to the place of exe- 
cution. See Ns. on Matt. 27 : 32 ; Mark 
15:21; Luke 23 : 26. Which is called, 
&c. It is worthy of remark that John 
calls the place where Jesus was cruci- 
fied, the skull-place, and gives, by Avay 
of interpretation, its Hebrew name 
Golgotha. Matthew and Mark, on the 
other hand, designate the place by the 
name Golgotha, and give as the inter- 
pretation of it, the place of a skull. 
Luke refers to the place by its Latin 
name, Calvaria, Calvary. Such a com- 
parison evinces the truthful indepen- 
dence of the Evangelists. 

18 — 24. The Crucifixion. Jerusa- 
lem. Sixth day of the Week. SeeXs. 
on Matt. 27 : 35-38 ; Mark 15 : 24-28 ; 
Luke 23 : 33, 34, 38. John's account 
is the more full and particular, especial- 
ly in reference to the parting of his 
garments among the soldiers. 

18. T/icy refers primarily to the sol- 
diers who acted as the executioners of 
Jesus, but secondarily, to the chief 
priests and rulers who accompanied 
them to the cross, in order to wituess 
with their own eyes the agony and 
death of Jesus. Two others, i. e. the 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIX. 



459 



19 p And Pilate wrote a title, 
and put it on the cross. And the 
writing was, JESUS OF NAZA- 
RETH THE KING OF THE 
JEWS. 

20 This title then read many 
of the Jews ; for the place where 

p Ht. 27 : 3T ; Ma. 15 : 26 ; Lu. 23 : 38. 



thieves spoken of in the other Evangel- 
ists. Jesus in the midst. The same 
position of disgraceful eminence, is as- 
signed him in all the Evangelists. 

19. Pilate ivrote a title. This is pe- 
culiar to John. Pilate's indignation 
against the Jews for demanding the 
crucifixion of Jesus, was such, that he 
caused the crime for which he was cru- 
cified, to be so worded as to convey the 
bitterest taunt to the Jews, who passed 
by or stood around the cross. It was 
this covert sarcasm in the superscrip- 
tion, which was the ground of the ob- 
jection made in v. 21 to its form of 
expression. Wrote, i. e. caused to be 
written. On the cross over his head. 
See N. on Matt. 27 : 37. The preposi- 
tional construction in the original, shows 
that the title was so affixed to the cross, 
as to be prominent to the eye of every 
passer-by. The varied form of the ti- 
tle as recorded by the four Evangel- 
ists, is referred to in N. on Matt. 27 : 
37. The juxtaposition of the words, 
of Nazareth or the Nazarene, with the 
King of the Jews, rendered the sar- 
casm more biting and offensive, inas- 
much as to the ignominy of the cross 
was added the low origin of this Jew- 
ish king. It will be seen, therefore, 
why John records the superscription in 
full, illustrating, as it does, the spirit of 
mockery with which Pilate had previ- 
ously sought to revenge himself upon 
the Jews, for their pertinacity in de- 
manding the crucifixion of Jesus. 

20-22. These verses are peculiar to 
John. The Synoptic Evangelists refer 
only to the three languages in which 
the title was written. For the reason 
why more than one language was em- 
ployed, see N. on Matt. 27 : 37 (end). 
Head many of the Jews. The implica- 



Jesus was crucified was nigh to 
the city : and it was written in 
Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. 

21 Then said the chief priests 
of the Jews to Pilate, Write 
not, The King of the Jews ; but 
that he said, I am King of the 
Jews. 

tion is that there was something re- 
markable in the wording of the super- 
scription, which attracted the attention 
of many of the Jews, both those who 
stood around the cross, and they who 
were passing along the road to and 
from the city. For the place, &c. This 
is subjoined as a reason why the title 
was so generally read by the Jews. 
The hill of Golgotha was just outside 
the city precincts, and near to one of 
the great public roads. The cross was 
therefore full in sight of all who passed. 
Was nigh to the city. The precise lo- 
cation of Golgotha, like other sacred 
places in and around Jerusalem, has 
been a matter of more or less dispute ; 
but it is quite clear that it was a small 
eminence just outside of the city, on 
the north-west side. It appears from 
Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29, to have 
been adjacent to one of the roads lead- 
ing from the country into the city. 
And it was written, &c. This is added 
as another reason why the superscrip- 
tion was read by many. It was written 
not only in the Roman and Greek lan- 
guages, so as to be understood by stran- 
gers who might chance to be in Jerusa- 
lem at this time, but also in the Hebrew 
or Aramaean language, which was the 
vernacular tongue of the common people, 
at the time of our Lord's appearance on 
earth. See N. on Matt. 27 : 37 (end). 

21. Tlien said, &c. It is uncertain 
whether the chief priests made this pro- 
test against the form of the superscrip- 
tion, before or after it was affixed to 
the cross. It seems the more probable 
conjecture, that it was when Pilate, hav- 
ing formally delivered up Jesus to the 
executioners, gave them the plate or 
card on which he had written the su- 
perscription which was so offensive 



460 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



22 Pilate answered, What I 
have written I have written. 

23 q Then the soldiers, when 
they had crucified Jesus, took his 
garments, and made four parts, to 
every soldier a part; and also 
his coat : now the coat was with- 
out seam, woven from the top 
throughout. 

q Mt. 27 : 35 ; Ma. 15 : 24 ; Lu. 23 : 34. 

to the chief priests. If however they 
only saw it when it was first attached 
to the cross, their request that the title 
should be altered, was doubtless con- 
veyed to the Roman governor by a 
deputation from their number. Write 
not. Pilate had already written the ti- 
tle (v. 22), and hence this must be taken 
in the sense of, let it not be written, i. e. 
let it be so altered as to read, that he 
said, &c, 

22. Pilate's reply is that of an irritat- 
ed man, determined to yield nothing 
more to the crafty and malignant ene- 
mies of Jesus. What I have written, 
refers to an act completed ; I have writ- 
ten, to its unalterable character. It is 
as though he had said, ' I have made 
the supersci'iption, and am resolved not 
to alter it.' Webster and Wilkinson 
say that he both gratified his resent- 
ment and acted with policy, in offering 
the insult to the nation implied in the 
superscription. Pilate was thus the 
unwitting instrument of affixing upon 
the cross of Jesus a glorious truth, 
namely, that he who hung thereon in 
agony, was the King of the Jews, whose 
reign over them would have neither 
bound nor end. 

23. Then the soldiers who were on 
duty at the crucifixion. When they 
had crucified Jesus, i. e. had nailed him 
to the cross + and erected it in its place. 
According to custom, he was previous- 
ly stripped of his garments, which were 
given to be divided among the soldiers. 
Hence their first act after he was sus- 
pended on the cross, was to divide his 
clothes as here related. Took his gar- 
ments i. e. his outer garments. His 
coat is particularly mentioned after- 



24 They said therefore among 
themselves, Let us not rend it, 
but cast lots for it, whose it shall 
be : that the scripture might be 
fulfilled, which saith, 'They parted 
my raiment among them, and for 
my vesture they did cast lots. 
These things therefore the sol- 
diers did. 

rPs. 22:18. 



wards. Made four parts, according to 
the number of soldiers employed to 
preside over the execution. The outer 
garment or cloak was doubtless rent 
into such portions as, together with the 
girdle and the sandals, would make 
four equal parts, to every soldier a part. 
Thus was fulfilled the first clause of the 
prediction cited from Ps. 22: 18. And 
(they took also) his coat. For the de- 
scription of the coat, and the cloak or 
outer garment, see 1S T . on Matt, 5 : 40. 
Without seam; literally, unsewed. This 
garment was usually made of two parts 
sewed together, with seams on the 
shoulders and sides. That worn on this 
occasion by our Lord, was not thus 
made, but woven whole, like the tunic 
of the high priest described by Jose- 
phus (Ant. III. 1, §4). From the top, 
&c. The garment was begun at the 
upper portion and woven downward. 
The particularity with which this fea- 
ture of its construction is mentioned, 
shows that it had been woven with 
much skill. It was probably the gift of 
some one or more of the Avomen, who 
followed him from Galilee, and minis- 
tered to him of their substance (Luke 
8:3). Tliroxtghout, i. e. the whole gar- 
ment from top to bottom, was woven 
without a seam. 

24. Among themselves, or to one 
another. The language is employed 
of mutual consultation and agreement. 
Let us not rend it, is said with refer- 
ence to the division of the outer gar- 
ment, which being a piece of cloth 
nearly square, readily admitted of a 
sepai-ation into parts. Had the coat 
of Jesus been made as usual with 
seams, they could have reduced it to 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIX. 



461 



25 'Now there stood by the 
cross of Jesus his mother, and 
his mother's sister, Mary the 

s Mt. 27: 55 ; Ma. 15 : 40 ; Lu. 23 : 49. 



its original number of pieces by rip- 
ping the seams. But cast lots. See X. 
on Matt. 27 : 35. Whose it shall be, 
i. e. to determine who shall possess it. 
This fulfilled the second clause in the 
prophecy cited below. That the scrip- 
ture, &c. See X. on Matt. 1 : 22. In 
regard to the citation itself, see N. on 
Matt. 27 : 35. Tliese tilings refers to 
the acts of the soldiers related in vs. 
23, 24, and stands opposed to what is 
recorded of the women in the follow- 
ing verse. The construction of the 
original is such as to place in strong 
contrast the unfeeling and selfish em- 
ployment of the soldiers, and the sym- 
pathizing attendance of those women 
upon our Lord during his suspension 
on the cross. Our translators were not 
wrong, however, in prefixing v. 25, 
with the sign of a new paragraph, 
since a new topic, and one connected 
with the preceding context only by 
contrast is introduced. "Webster and 
'Wilkinson connect the last clause in 
v. 24 with this new paragraph. 

25-27. Jesus commends his mother 
to John. Jerusalem. Sixth day of 
the Week. This touching narrative is 
peculiar to John, and shows that at 
some favored moment, when the jeer- 
ing multitude through exhaustion or 
satiety of revenge, had intermitted for 
a season their taunts, the friends of 
Jesus were enabled to approach so near 
him, as to carry on the conversation 
here recorded without interruption. 
It should be remembered, that the suf- 
ferer was elevated but a few feet from 
the ground, so that, as far as his agony 
would permit, he could easily converse 
with those around him. John who 
had entered the high-priest's palace, 
and borne himself so faithfully and 
courageously while his Master was ex- 
amined before the Sanhedrim, is found 
here also at the very foot of the cross, 
receiving the dying charge of Jesus to 
act as a son to his mother, into whose 



wife of ' Cleopas, and Mary Ma< 
dalene. 

t Lu. 24 ; 18. 



soul the sword was now entering, as 
predicted by Simeon (Luke 2 : 35). For 
the most time, and while the infuriated 
shouts of the rabble indicated the 
danger which any friend of Jesus 
might incur by approaching the cross, 
these women stood at some distance 
from the scene of suffering. See 
Matt. 27 : 55 ; Mark 15 : 40^; Luke 
23 : 49. 

25. Now there stood; literally, but 
there were standing. This clause, as 
has been remarked, places in strong 
contrast the sympathy of this group 
of friends with the cold and unfeeling 
conduct of the soldiers just recorded. 
By or near by. As no attempt to lib- 
erate the sufferer was to be apprehend- 
ed from a single man and three or four 
grief-stricken women, these friends of 
Jesus were permitted to approach near 
to the cross, and converse with him. 
His mother's sister. The best exposi- 
tors, from a comparison with Matt. 
27 : 56 ; Mark 15 : 40, refer this to 
Salome, John's own mother (see Mark 
15:40, compared with Matt. 27:56), 
whose name he forbears to give, for 
the same reason, that he does not 
name himself. So Bengel : "John mod- 
estly omits his mother Salome, who 
however was present." Such is the 
view of Olshausen, Alford, Webster 
and Wilkinson. But Luthardt opposes 
this view on the ground that counting 
in pairs is inappropriate here, and that 
there must be a reason for the pres- 
ence of the wife of Cleopas, while the 
mention of Salome without giving her 
name is scarcely befitting. Mary the 
wife of Cleopas, according to Luthardl's 
view and that of some others, is the 
person referred to in the preceding 
words, his mother's sister. The ellipsis 
of wife, as indicated in our English 
version, is very natural, and is like our 
Cleopas's Mary, i. e. of the Marys who 
were present, this particular one was 
the wife of Cleopas. The Cleopas or 



462 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



26 When Jesus therefore saw 
Lis mother, and u the disciple 
standing by, whom he loved, he 
saith unto his mother, x Woman, 
behold thy son ! 

u Ch. 13 : 23 ; & 20 : 2 ; & 21 : 7, 20, 24. 

Cleophas here mentioned, is not the 
one referred to in Luke 23 : 18 (on 
"which see Note), but is supposed to be 
the one called Alpheus the father of 
James the Less. See N. on Matt. ]0 : 3. 
Mary Magdalene. See N. on Luke 
8:2. 

26. When Jesus saw, &c. This would 
seem to indicate, that the little band 
had stood some moments, before our 
Lord's special observation was directed 
to them. This is not to be wondered 
at, when we take into consideration 
his intense physical and mental agony, 
which was at this time weighing him 
down, and rendering him in a measure 
insensible, both to the taunts of his 
enemies and the sympathizing presence 
of his friends. Standing by his mother. 
Perhaps she was leaning on the beloved 
disciple, in this time of her maternal 
distress. He saith unto his mother, 
&c. Stier eloquently remarks: "The 
burden of the world's redemption with 
all its increasing horror of sin, lies upon 
his soul; boundless anticipations, now 
gradually receding and passing away, 
of the glory to be obtained had filled 
his spirit, yet he has room for the ex- 
ercise of the minutest care." Woman. 
This shows that nothing disrespectful 
was intended in 2:4. Behold thy son ! 
i. e. behold in him one who will dis- 
charge towards you, all the duties im- 
plied in the relationship of an affection- 
ate son. 

27. Behold thy mother! "The ad- 
dress to each, severally, rendered the 
transfer and charge more solemn and 
affecting. It also more impressively 
reminded each of the duties towards 
the other involved in their new rela- 
tionship." Webster and Wilkinson. 
The strange perversion of this passage 
by the Romanists, to teach that Jesus 
here committed his disciples in the 
person of John as their representative, 



27 Then saith he to the dis- 
ciple, Behold thy mother ! And 
from that hour that disciple took 
her v unto his own home. 



x Ch. 2:4. 
y Ch. 1 : 11 ; & 16 : 32. 



to the care and protection of his mother, 
is hardly worthy of serious confutation. 
Not to speak of the entire want of 
proof, direct or indirect, from the 
Scriptures, or from the records of the 
early acts of the disciples, that Mary 
had any superintendence whatever 
over the apostles or disciples, save that 
which would naturally and spontaneous-' 
ly be accorded to her as the aged and 
honored mother of their incarnate Lord, 
the whole tenor and spirit of the fare- 
well discourse and prayer, as given in 
chaps. XT V.— XVII. , is" totally against 
such a view. A Helper and Superin- 
tendent is indeed promised the disciples, 
but He is the Holy Ghost, one coequal 
with the Father and Son, and not a 
feeble, sinful woman, who during the 
whole time of our Lord's ministry, is 
introduced to the reader's notice but 
in two or three instances, and then in a 
very casual manner. Nothing but sheer 
want of all scriptural proof for their 
impious Mariolatry, would compel them 
to resort to this passage for evidence of 
the preposterous claims which they set 
up for the worship of a mere creature. 
From that hour. Some have thought 
that John, at the intimation of Jesus, 
withdrew his mother immediately from 
the scene of suffering, that she might 
be spared the witnessing of his last 
agony. But the text does not necessa- 
rily imply this. Unto his own home. 
We have no reason to infer that John 
had at this time any fixed place of 
residence, either in Jerusalem or Galilee. 
All that the passage before us teaches 
is, that from the time when this sacred 
trust was committed to him, John 
cherished and took care of Mary at his 
own home, wherever that might be. 
That John was possessed of private 
means of support, may be gathered 
from Matt. 4: 21, 22; Mark 1: 20 (on 
which see Note); Luke 5: 10. The 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIX. 



463 



28 After this, Jesus knowing 
that all things were now accom- 



question may arise, why the brethren 
of Jesus were not directed to provide 
for the maintenance of their mother. 
There may have been private family 
reasons which forbade this. Their un- 
belief at this time in Jesus, and the op- 
position arising therefrom, may have 
rendered it necessary for him to consign 
his mother to the immediate care of 
John. The question, however, is one 
of little comparative importance. The 
impressive lesson which the passage 
before us teaches of the duty of filial 
love, is that which claims our chief 
consideration. 

28-30. Christ expires on the cross. 
Jerusalem. Sixth day of the Week. 
See Xs. on Matt. 27 : 48-50 ; Mark 15 : 
35-37 ; Luke 23 : 40. John makes no 
record of the .supernatural darkness, 
but gives in v. 28, the reason why the 
acid wine was offered Jesus, as related 
here and by the other Evangelists. 
Thus the narrative is rendered complete 
and consistent by the Evangelists, when 
compared with one another. 

28. As above remarked, this verse 
is peculiar to John, and is of special 
interest, inasmuch as it shows, that 
during the time of his intense agony, 
Jesus was conscious that he was fulfil- 
ling a predetermined series of sufferings, 
and manifested no impatient haste, that 
they should be endured other than in 
their alloted place and time. After this, 
i. e. the incident related in v. 27. All 
things, i. e. all the predictions of the 
Old Testament, in regard to his suffer- 
ings and death. Were now accomplished, 
i. e. brought to an end, perfectly ful- 
filled. It is a stronger word, than that 
usuallv employed in the sense of might 
be fulfilled, Matt. 1 : 22 ; Mark 14 : 29 ; 
John 12 : 38, etc. Tliat the scripture. 
The reference is to Ps. 69 : 21. Might 
be fulfilled. The same verb is here 
employed as in the preceding clause, 
and denotes entire and complete fulfil- 
ment. A question has here arisen, 
whether our Lord pronounced the 



plished, £ that the scripture might 
be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. 



sPs. CO: 21. 



words I tJiirst, simply and solely to se- 
cure the fulfilment of the Messianic 
prediction, or whether it was simply 
the expression of a desire to allay his 
raging thirst. That the former of 
these suppositions is erroneous, there 
can be hardly a question. It would 
have been little short of solemn trifling 
for him to have uttered these words, 
for no other purpose than to fulfil the 
scripture here referred to. In order 
to avoid the necessity of such an inter- 
pretation, Olshausen refers the words 
that the scripture might be fulfilled, 
to the Evangelist himself, to whose 
mind it recurred, that the exclamation, 
of Jesus fulfilled a prediction. So 
Lucke, while he admits that this clause 
is in grammatical dependence upon the 
verb saith, yet adds : " that the scripture, 
&c, is the expression of John's own 
typological views, not of the Lord's 
design." In regard to this, Stier well 
remarks, that a typological thought of 
John, that is, of the Holy Ghost in his 
narration, and therefore finally of the 
Lord's own consciousness, is not alto- 
gether an unworthy view, as Lucke 
would contend. But it seems quite 
forced and unnatural to interpret this 
as the remark of the Evangelist, and 
therefore, unless we are compelled thus 
to do in order to meei some necessary 
condition of the passage, we do far 
better to refer the clause to the con- 
scious design of Christ. Bengel con- 
structs this clause with the preceding- 
words, instead of connecting it with 
saith, and gives this as the sense : 
"Jesus knew in himself that all was 
now so accomplished, that by this one 
thing more the whole Scripture would 
be fulfilled." But this requires the in- 
troduction of the word so, which is not 
found in the original, and which, if 
omitted, reduces this grammatical con- 
struction to a mere tautology : ' Jesus 
knowing that all things were now ac- 
complished, that the scripture might be 
accomplished.' We cannot but wonder 



464 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



29 Now there was set a vessel 
full of vinegar : and a they filled 
a sponge with vinegar, and put it 
upon hyssop, and put it to his 
mouth. 

a Mt. 27:48. 

that expositors should evade the plain 
and simple teaching of the passage, 
and resort to such forced and unsatis- 
factory solutions of a difficulty, which 
after all lies more in the preconceived 
notions and prejudices of the interpre- 
ter, than in the words themselves. Can 
any person read this passage in its sim- 
ple language, and compare it with the 
parallel account of Matthew and Mark, 
and not attribute the exclamation of 
our Lord to a desire to allay his ex- 
treme thirst? Would any one dream 
for a moment that the words i" thirst, 
were spoken solely to fulfil a prediction 
of the Old Testament? Every candid 
reader will say no. But then is there 
any thing strange in the concurrent, 
harmonious fact, that his thirst and the 
mode in which the soldiers attempted 
to allay it, were parts of those great 
things predicted of him, all which 
were to be accomplished? Certainly 
not. If then our Lord, in his extreme 
thirst, should choose to declare it aloud, 
in order that no preappointed circum- 
stance might be unfulfilled, what is 
there strange or unworthy in such an 
exclamation, as he is here reported to 
have uttered? He thirsted, and in his 
recollection of the things predicted, the 
scripture alone remained unfulfilled in 
which it was said, "that in his thirst 
they gave him vinegar to drink," and 
seeing in this a permission or appoint- 
ment in his last moments, of a final re- 
freshment for his lips, he thought it 
befitting to utter aloud his thirst (Stier). 
So Lampe well expresses it: "Nor 
would he have sought this refreshment, 
had he not known that this also be- 
longed to the criteria of the Messiah, 
according to the prophets, whence 
arose this new motive — that the Scrip- 
ture might be fulfilled." The primary 
motive then of the exclamation was the 
thirst which our Lord felt ; the secon- 



30 When Jesus therefore had 
received the vinegar, he said, b It 
is finished : and he bowed his 
head, and gave up the ghost. 



&Ch. 17:4. 



dary one was both obedience to the 
Scriptures, and a desire that they might 
be fulfilled in every particular. 

29. Now there icas set, &c. The ves- 
sel filled with the liquor here spoken 
of was placed near by, doubtless for 
the use of the soldiers who watched 
the crucifixion. Vinegar. See N. on 
Matt. 27 : 48. Hyssop, i. e. a stem or 
stalk of this shrub, which would be of 
sufficient length to reach with extended 
arm the sufferer's mouth, as he hung 
quite low. This verse is explained in 
the Note on Matt. 27 : 48. Put it to 
his mouth, is more definite than the 
corresponding gave him to drink, of 
Matthew and Mark. This shows that 
John was an eye-witness of the trans- 
actions here recorded. 

30. The parallel passage in the Sy- 
noptics, is Matt. 27 : 50; Mark 15 : 37 ; 
Luke 23 : 46, on which see Notes. It 
will be noticed that the two former 
Evangelists omit entirely the dying 
exclamation of Jesus, while Luke re- 
cords the words, "Father into thy 
hands I commend my spirit." John 
omits this, and records the previous 
exclamation, it is finished — one of the 
greatest and most profound utterances 
which ever fell upon the human ear. 
Stier enters largely upon the full im- 
port of the expression, but unless a 
very wide range of exposition is cov- 
ered, setting forth in order and detail 
the great achievement of human re- 
demption, having its origin in the 
counsels of eternity, and consummated 
only when that glorious period shall 
have been reached, in which the Son 
shall give up the kingdom to God, 
even the Father (I Cor. 15 : 24)— 
which range the restricted limits of 
this commentary forbids me to take — 
it will suffice to say, that this exclama- 
tion of our dying Lord refers to the 
complete fulfilment of every thing 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XIX. 



465 



pertaining to his humiliation, obodi- j 
ence, and suffering, in the work of 
man's salvation. It does not refer 
simply to the Old Testament predic- 
tions — although these are .included — 
but as Stier well and eloquently says, 
"all things were done which the law 
required, all things established which 
prophecy predicted, all things abol- 
ished which were to be abrogated, 
all things obtained in order to be be- 
stowed which had been the subject 
of promise. All things — down to the 
last drops of scornful compassion, and 
compassionate scorn, after receiving 
which Christ's lips uttered this great 
word — were suffered which were to be 
suffered ; but therein, at the same 
time, all things were done and accom- 
plished, nothing Avas left wanting. The 
theology of ages has striven to em- 
brace this 'all' and to develop it; 
and strives to this day in vain to ex- 
press it perfectly." It hardly need 
be said that the death of Christ, which 
was just at hand, must of necessity be 
included in this great utterance. It 
was a part of his appointed course, 
and was virtually accomplished, inas- 
much as immediately after commending 
his spirit to God (Luke), he bowed his 
head in death. It is however to bo 
carefully noted, that the breathing 
out of his soul in death, is not in this 
great connection regarded as the sole 
or principal act to be consummated in 
man's redemption. It was rather the 
last in a series of acts of humiliation, 
suffering, and obedience, all of which 
had been prearranged and rendered 
necessary of fulfilment in the economy 
of redeeming love. Death was to be the 
last and crowning act in this sublime 
devotion of love. Obedience unto 
death was to characterize the second 
Adam, as disobedience which brought 
death and woe into the world, charac- 
terized the trial of the first Adam. 
Hence it was true, that without the 
shedding of blood there could be no 
remission of sin, but yet no inference 
can be fairly drawn from this, that the 
great achievement of Christ in procur- 
ing God's favor for guilty man, was not 
performed in those hours of dreadful 
Vol. III.— 20* 



agony, when bereft of his Father's 
sensible presence, and with the weight 
of a world's transgression resting upon 
him, he cried out in his insupportable 
anguish, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani. 
Death affixed the final seal upon his 
work of suffering, but death apart from 
the preceding conflict, would have been 
of no efficacy in averting God's dis- 
pleasure from sinful man. He bore in 
his own body Our sins upon the tree 
(I Pet. 2:24); and it was this burden 
that crushed him down during the hours 
of agony on the cross, which removed 
from man the curse of the law, and 
rendered salvation through faith in a 
crucified Saviour, attainable to all. He 
bowed his head, i. e. his head reclined 
upon his shoulder, there being no 
longer the exercise of the vital func- 
tion, or indeed of any living conscious- 
ness, to support it. This fact which 
John alone relates, shows that he was 
an eye-witness, and not dependent 
upon the testimony of others, for the 
minuteness of detail - with which he de- 
scribes the particulars of Jesus' death. 
It was probably after his exclamation, 
it is finished, and just before his head 
thus dropped in death, that he com- 
mended his spirit to his Father as re- 
corded by Luke. 

31—12. The taking down from the 
cross. The Burial. Jerusalem. Sixth 
day of the Week. Thfs passage as far as 
v. 37 inclusive, is peculiar to John, and 
furnishes the most irrefragable proof of 
the actual death of Jesus. Indeed it 
would seem to have been penned for 
the express purpose of meeting those 
doubts and denials of Jesus' death, 
which in every age have been put forth 
by the opponents of Christianity, in 
order to invalidate the great fact of 
his resurrection, and throw discredit 
upon the whole scheme of redemption 
through the death of the Son of God. 
John's testimony in v. 34, which he 
makes as an eye-witness (v. 35), has re- 
futed and will ever continue to refute 
all those miserable allegations of scep- 
ticism and infidelity, that the body of 
Jesus was taken from the cross before 
life was extinct, and that being resus- 
citated, his disciples invented the story 



466 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



31 «f The Jews therefore, "be- 
cause it was the preparation, d that 
the bodies should not remain 
upon the cross on the sabbath 

c Yer. 42 ; Ma. 15 : 42. 

of his resurrection and reappearance, 
as related in the Gospels. Apart from 
this testimony of John, we might chal- 
lenge from the opponents of this great 
central fact of Christianity, one sub- 
stantia', convincing argument, that it 
was within the bounds of probability, 
we say not possibility, that the friends 
of Jesus should have been permitted 
to remove his body from the cross, be- 
fore his enemies had fully satisfied 
themselves that he was actually dead. 
That deep and determined malice which 
rent the air with the infuriated cry, 
Away ! away ! Crucify him, crucify 
him, did not so speedily spend itself, 
as to leave him to the compassion of 
his friends, to be taken down from the 
cross while life still remained in his 
mangled body. It was not until they 
had feasted their eyes upon his final 
agony, and the lance driven deep into 
his side had rendered his death* a 
matter of absolute certainty, that they 
left the scene of the crucifixion and 
entered the city. But when in addition 
to the proof of Christ's death thus 
drawn from the nature of the case, we 
have the explicit testimony of the 
Evangelist, there remains not a shadow 
of doubt, that Jesus actually died on 
the cross, and that the body deposited 
in Joseph's tomb was that of a dead 
man. 

31. Therefore is not illative, but the 
temporal then, marking the orderly suc- 
cession of events. Because, &c. This 
clause depends upon the following one, 
that the bodies, &c. The hour of prep- 
aration admonished them that the 
sabbath was just at hand ; and in order 
that the bodies of the criminals might 
not hang upon the cross exposed to the 
public gaze after sunset, which was 
contrary to the Jewish law (Deut. 21: 
23), they go to Pilate for permission to 
hasten their death in the manner here 
described. Josephus (Jewish "Wars 



day, (for that sabbath day was 
a high day,) besought Pilate that 
their legs might be broken, and 
that they might be taken away. 

cfDo. 21:23. 

III. 5, § 2,) says, that so great care did 
the Jews take respecting sepulture, 
that even the bodies of the condemned 
to be crucified, they took down and 
burned before sunset. The prepara- 
tion for the sabbath. See N. on Mark 
15:42, where we are definitely in- 
formed, that our Lord was crucified on 
the day before the Jewish sabbath, 
that is, on our Friday. For that sabbath, 
&c. Literally, for the day of that 
sabbath was great. It was not only the 
sabbath which itself, with the Jews, was 
a high or great day, but it was the one 
which fell upon the second day of the 
festival. In answer to those critics, who 
contend that this sabbath was called 
a great or high day, because it was the 
first and not the second festival day, 
and who thus seek to prove, that our 
Lord anticipated the celebration of the 
paschal feast with his disciples one 
day, Dr. Robinson well and conclusive- 
ly replies: "The sabbath upon which 
the sixteenth of Nisan or second day 
of the festival fell, might be called 
great or high, for various reasons. 
First, as the sabbath of the great na- 
tional festival, when all Israel was 
gathered before the Lord. Secondly, 
as the day when the first fruits were 
presented with solemn rites in the tem- 
ple ; a ceremony paramount in its ob- 
ligations even to the sabbath. Thirdly, 
because on that day, they began to 
reckon the fifty days until the festival 
of Pentecost (Levit. 23:15). In all 
these circumstances there is certainly 
enough to warrant the epithet great, 
as applied to the sabbath on which the 
sixteenth of Nisan might fall as com- 
pared with other sabbaths. There ex- 
ists therefore no necessity, and indeed 
no reason, for supposing, that John by 
this language meant to describe the 
sabbath in question, as coincident with 
the first paschal day, or fifteenth of 
Nisan." Besought Pilate, &c. They did 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIX. 



467 



32 Then came the soldiers, and 
brake the legs of the first, and of 
the other which was crucified with 
him. 

33 But when they came to Je- 

e Uo. 5 : 6, 8. 

this by a messenger ; or some of their 
number may have remained in the city, 
to watch Pilate, and see that he did 
not indulge in any clemency toward 
Jesus, by which he would be taken 
from the cross before death, a thing 
which they had reason to fear, from 
his great hesitation in delivering him 
up to death. That their legs, &c. 
" This was of course, a coup de grace, 
intended to cause immediate or very 
speedy death. The fatal effect would 
be produced probably by the sudden 
access of pain, the sufferer being al- 
ready in a state of great exhaustion." 
Webster and Wilkinson. And that 
they might be taken away ; literally, and 
might be taken away, the subject be- 
ing grammatically legs, but by neces- 
sary implication the bodies. 

32. Then, or therefore, in pursuance 
of the orders of Pilate, at the instance 
of the Jews. Of the first (to whom they 
came), and the other. A comparison 
with v. 33, clearly refers this to the 
thieves. With him, i. e. with Jesus. 

33. But when they came, &c. This 
does not imply, that they passed by 
Jesus at first, and proceeded to break 
the legs of the thief who was farthest 
from them, after which they returned 
to Jesus who hung in the centre. They 
doubtless took the bodies in order, and 
coming to that of Jesus, and finding 
that life was already extinct, one of the 
soldiers in a spirit of wanton and savage 
cruelty, thrust his spear into his side, 
after which they passed on to the other 
malefactor, whose legs they broke as 
those of the first. But is here the 
slight adversative particle, and intro- 
duces the fact of Jesus' death, as the 
reason why they brake not his legs, as 
they did theirs who were crucified with 
him. The construction in the original 
is, but having come to Jesus, when they 
saw, &c. This places the emphasis on 



sus, and saw that he was dead 
already, they brake not his legs : 
34 But one of the soldiers 
with a spear pierced his side, and 
forthwith e came there out blood 
and water. 



the verb saiv, to which it here properly 
belongs. Was dead already, or had 
now already died. It is another proof 
of the actual death of Jesus, that the 
experienced eye of these soldiers de- 
tected no sign of life. Tliey brake not 
his legs, there being no necessity of this, 
in consequence of the fact that life was 
already extinct. 

34. The conjunction but, with which 
this verse commences, is strongly ad- 
versative, the wound here inflicted 
upon the body of Jesus, being con- 
trasted with the breaking of the 
legs of the malefactors, in order to 
hasten their death. Although their 
practised eye saw that he was already 
dead, they did not pass him by, but 
made the fact of his death absolutely 
certain, in the manner here recorded. 
With a spear ; literally, the point of the 
weapon, i. e. the triangular iron head 
of the lance or javelin. Pierced his 
side. He probably aimed at the heart, 
for we cannot suppose that the position 
of the wound w r as the result of a chance 
thrust, or that he pierced the left side 
of Jesus, because he approached the 
body from that quarter. That it was 
the side of the body into which the 
spear was thrust, is seen also from 20: 
27. Blood and water. The pericardi- 
um of the heart was pierced, and blood 
and serum, or a reddish lymphatic hu- 
mor, flowed forth. So various and con- 
flicting have been the views of medical 
men, as to the fact here recorded, that 
I prefer rather to pass them over, than 
to encumber these pages with opinions, 
which in the very nature of the case 
must abound in the technicalities of the 
profession, and be therefore quite re- 
mote from the comprehension of the 
common reader. Suffice it to say, that 
no objection of infidelity, that blood 
coagulates so speedily in a dead body, 
as to render the fact here asserted, that 






468 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



it flowed forth from the body of Jesus, 
an impossibility, has ever stood the 
test of actual experiment. In order 
that the trial might be complete and 
satisfactory, it should be made on the 
body of one, who hung suspended in 
precisely the way in which the body of 
Jesus hung ; and a deep wound entering 
the rery heart should be inflicted. So 
Ebrard — whose learned investigation, 
Tholuck says, has brought the ques- 
tion to a new, and apparently satisfac- 
tory result — on the basis of medical 
observation, directs special attention to 
the influence exercised by the stretch- 
ing of the muscles and by extravasa- 
tion, on the condition of the blood of 
persons in suffering, and of the dead, 
and closes his examination with this re- 
sult: "the lance might strike several 
blood-vessels, it might come in contact 
with points, at which extravasated blood 
was collected, where serum and placenta 
were in a state of separation, and the 
former alone flowed out, and as the 
lance entered more deeply, it might 
touch places in which the blood was 
fluid." 

A question arises here as to what 
was the immediate cause of Jesus' 
death. Some contend that it was the 
dreadful anguish which he endured from 
the hidings of his Father's countenance, 
which literally burst his heart, and 
caused death long before it would have 
resulted from the physical pains of the 
cross. That the indescribable mental 
agony of Jesus hastened his death, 
there can be no question ; but that it 
was the sole and proximate cause of 
his death, seems to be destitute of 
sufficient proof, and is in the light of 
other scriptures quite improbable. Not 
to refer to Philip. 2: 8, where the death 
of the cross (not upon the cross) is 
spoken of, Peter charges the Jews 
directly in Acts 2 : 23, with having cru- 
cified and slain Jesus by wicked hands ; 
and in 3 : 15, he repeats the charge, 
that they "killed the Prince of life," 
showing that not in intent and purpose 
only, but in actual verity, they put 
Jesus to death. Compare also the 



85 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true; 

words of Stephen (Acts 7 : 52), where 
he charges the Jews with being the mur- 
derers of the Just One, even as their 
Fathers had persecuted and slain the 
prophets who predicted His coming. 
Reference is had here beyond all ques- 

j tion to an actual death, effected by hu- 
man instrumentality, and not by the 

| immediate hand of God. In harmony 
with this, is the predictive declaration 
of our Lord himself, that he should be 
delivered unto the Gentiles, wdio should 
mock, scourge, spit upon, and hill him 
(Mark 10 : 3-1), and put him to death 
(Luke 18: 33). Other texts of similar 
form of expression and import might 
be cited, all which prove beyond a 
doubt, that the death of Jesus was 
effected by the agency of men. That 
it was hastened by his mental suffer- 
ings, there can be no question, for crim- 
inals hung suspended usually for many 
hours, before death put an end to their 
misery, and Pilate was astonished at 
the report of the speedy death of Je- 
sus ; but that it was solely and imme- 
diately to be attributed to the frown of 
God, which rested upon him, and which 
broke his heart, is alike without proof 
or probability. No one will dare to 
affirm, that, if Jesus had not been sus- 
pended on the cross, his mental distress 
would have caused his death. It was 
in the wise economy of redemption 
necessary, that he should suffer a violent 
death by the hand of those whom he 
came to save (see Acts 2 : 23). This 
agency of the cross in the death of 
Christ, does not however militate in 
the least with the fact, which must im- 
press itself upon every intelligent reader, 
that the ineffable mental agony of Je- 
sus, under the hidings of his Father's 
face and the hellish assaults of the 
powers of darkness, was so great, that 
the pains of the cross were compara- 
tively as nothing. But yet that instru- 
ment of death was all the while doing 
its dreadful work, and quickened and 
strengthened by his overwhelming men- 
tal distress, in the short space of six 
hours caused him to bow his head in 
death. 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XIX. 



469 



and he knoweth that he saith ! 
true, that ye might believe. 

36 For these things were done, 
''that the scripture should be ful- , 
filled, A bone of him shall not be 
broken. 

35. This verse, as has been remarked 
at the commencement of the Xotes on 
this section, puts for ever to rest all 
doubts as to the actual death of Jesus. 
John avers in the most emphatic man- 
ner, that he saw the side cf Jesus 
pierced, in the manner related in v. 34. 
and that he knows therefore the truth 
of what he has affirmed. He doubtless 
stood near the cross, and as the sol- 
diers passed on to break the legs of the 
other thief, he probably drew so near j 
to the body of Jesus, that he saw the 
blood and water trickling forth from 
the gaping wound. This is a sufficient 
answer to the objection made by some, 
that the quantity of blood and water 
must have been so small, that John 
could not have seen it, so as to describe 
it in the manner here related. That 
there was something strange and un- 
usual in the circumstance, is evident 
from the reiterated assertion of the 
truth of his statement made by the Evan- j 
in the next verse. But it is the ■ 
extreme of hardihood, for skepticism 
to deny in face of such competent and 
positive testimony, that the thing actu- 
ally took place as here recorded. And 
he that saic it bare record, i. e. he who 
here records the fact, was an eye-wit- 
ness of it. His record (or testimony) 
is true, i. e. he was not only an eye- 
witness, but a truthful reporter of the 
circumstance here related. And he 
hioiceth, &c. The Evangelist here ap- j 
peals to his own consciousness of the 
truth of his statement, in order that 
there may be no doubt whatever in the | 
mind of his readers, that Christ actually 
died in the manner here related, and 
that his body was subject to all the 
conditions of any human body in simi- 
lar circumstances. The design also of 
this affirmation may have been to ex- 
pose the error of the Docetae (see X. 
on 1 : 1), who held that the bodv of 



37 And again another scripture 
saith, ,J They shall look on him 
■whom they pierced. 



/Ex. 12 : 46 : Nn. 0:12: Ps. 34: 20. 
g Ps. 22 : 10, IT ; Zee. 12 : 10 ; Ee. 1 : 7. 



Jesus was human in appearance only, 
and not in reality. He therefore in 
positive and reiterated language, asserts 
that he saw the spear enter the side of 
Jesus, and blood and water issue from 
the wound when it was drawn forth. 
That ye may believe that Jesus had a 
veritable body, and that he actually 
died on the cross. This clause is de- 
pendent on the three preceding clauses, 
and not, as some construct it, on the 
last alone. The pronoun ye in the 
original is emphatic, and refers to those 
Christian readers, for whom he primarily 
wrote his gospel. 

36. The design of this verse is to 
show, that the incident just related was 
by no means unimportant or trivial, 
for it was the fulfilment of a prophecy, 
as well as a proof of the actual death 
of Jesus. The word for, is therefore 
illustrative and confirmatory of the 
preceding assertion. ' This is not to be 
wondered at, or regarded as of little 
moment, for these thine/",'' &c. Refer- 
ence is had in these things, to what 
has just been related, of their passing 
by Jesus without breaking his legs. 
That the scripture, kc. See X. on 
Matt. 1 : 22. The citation is from Ex. 
12:46, where the paschal lamb, the 
type of Christ, was commanded to 
be eaten, without the breaking of 
a bone thereof (see also Xumb. 9 : 12). 
Some think that Ps. 34: 20, is re- 
ferred to, where the Lord is said to 
keep all the bones of the righteous, 
so that not one of them is broken. 
But there can be no doubt that the 
reference is to the paschal lamb, which 
in so manv of its aspects was the tvpe 
of Christ." 

37. The preceding fulfilment of scrip- 
ture related to the fact, that not a bone 
in our Lord's body was broken in his 
crucifixion. The scripture here cited 
(Zech. 12 : 10), refers to the piercing 



470 



JOHN. 



[A. D. S3. 



38 1" ; ' And after this Joseph 
of Arimathea, being a disciple of 
Jesus, but secretly • for fear of 
the Jews, besought Pilate that 

h Mt. 27 : 57 ; Ma. 15 : 42 ; Lu. 23 : 50. 

of his side with the spear. It will be 
seen that me, in the original Hebrew, 
is changed by the Evangelist to kim, 
because John must necessarily speak 
of Christ, as looked upon by those 
who pierced him, in the third person. 
It is worthy of note, that in the 
original the nearest antecedent to me, 
which John in the application of the 
prophecy here refers to Christ, is Je- 
hovah, in vs. 1, 4, which is another proof 
that the Messiah of the New, and Jeho- 
vah of the Old Testament, is one and 
the same Being. The verb they shall 
look, in the oi-iginal Hebrew, has an 
intensive signification, they shall be- 
hold with fixed attention, and stands 
connected with a Messianic prediction, 
that the Jews, under the influence of 
the spirit of grace and supplication 
which is to be poured out upon them, 
shall look upon Jesus, whom their fath- 
ers pierced, and recognize and ac- 
knowledge him as their Messiah. But 
that which is primarily predicted of 
the house of David and the inhabitants 
of Jerusalem, is true of every con- 
verted sinner, who in view of his sins 
and impenitence, feels that he has him- 
self pierced his Redeemer, and looks 
to Him as one whom he has helped to 
crucify. Calvin takes the verb have 
pierced, in the original, in the meta- 
phorical sense of grieving or provoking. 
But Henderson remarks, that this verb 
which occurs in ten other passages, is 
never used except in the literal accep- 
tation of piercing the body, and is 
thus used in 13 : 3 of the same book of 
Zechariah. The pronoun they, in the 
light of the original refers therefore to 
the Jews, who in their future conver- 
sion through the outpouring of the 
Holy Spirit, will look upon and ac- 
knowledge Jesus as their Messiah, and 
will remember with the deepest soitow 
and abasement, that their fathers pierced 
him, as he hung upon the cross for 



he might take away the body of 
Jesus : and Pilate gave him 
leave. He came therefore, and 
took the body of Jesus. 



iCh. 9:22; &12:42. 



the sins of the world. A most remark- 
able prophecy which is yet to be ful- 
filled, the outpouring of the Spirit on 
the day of Pentecost, being a kind 
of first fruits, a pledge and type of the 
future conversion of that remarkable 
people to Christianity. 

38. After this. A reference to Mark 
will show, that Joseph made this re- 
quest, before the command was given 
to break the legs of the sufferers. This 
is indicated by the fact, that when 
Joseph craved the body of Jesus, " Pi- 
late marvelled if he were already dead, 1 ' 
and inquired of the centurion, if he 
had been dead for a long or considera- 
ble time. This he Avould not have 
done, had Joseph preferred his request, 
after the execution of his orders to 
put the sufferers to death by breaking 
their legs. John's narration, therefore, 
is to be chronologically conformed to 
that of Mark, who relates the events with 
more regard to their true and orderly 
succession. The apparent discrepancy 
is removed, if we affix to after these 
things, the sense of meanwhile or during 
these things, a meaning, which the 
Greek preposition here employed may 
have from its etymological signification 
in the midst of, among, &c. The order 
of events I take to be this. As soon 
as our Lord bow r ed his head in death 
(v. 30), Joseph who was either present 
at the cross, or was informed of the 
event, hastens to Pilate, as the evening 
was now drawing on (Matt. 27 : 57), and 
begs that the body of Jesus may be 
placed at his disposal. Pilate then ex- 
presses his wonder at the sudden death 
of Jesus, as recorded by Mark (15 : 44). 
Soon after the time when Joseph leaves, 
or perhaps while he is yet having audi- 
ence with Pilate, the Jews approach 
and make the request spoken of in 
John 11): 31. As soon as the legs of 
the thieves are broken, and the body 
of Jesus who was already dead, pierced 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XIX. 



471 



39 And there came also k Nico- 
demus, (which at the first came 



k Ch. 3 : 1, 



50. 



•with the spear (vs. 32-34), the author- 
ities leave the body to the disposal of 
Joseph, who was doubtless present 
during the execution of the governor's 
orders, as recorded in the verses above 
cited. This harmonizes and arranges 
the events in their natural order, with- 
out impugning the accuracy of either 
of the Evangelists, Mark or John. 
There is one other method of harmo- 
nizing the two accounts, namely, to 
refer the words after this, to the taking 
down of the body by Joseph from the 
cross, which of course was subsequent 
to the piercing of his body by the 
spear of the soldier. But this is less 
natural, and therefore the other mode 
of reconciliation is to be preferred. But 
secretly for fear of the Jews, is found 
only in John. See 12 : 42. With this 
should be contrasted the boldness with 
which he preferred his request to Pilate 
(Mark 15 : 43). Gave him leave, after he 
had ascertained from the centurion who 
presided at the crucifixion, that Jesus 
was actually dead. Therefore in accord- 
ance with the permission given him by Pi- 
late. Ihok the boch/ of Jesus down from 
the cross. See Mark 15 : 40 ; Luke 23 : 53. 
That Nicodemus was his associate and 
helper in this pious act, is evident from 
the next verse. It appears quite prob- 
able, that it was preconcerted between 
Joseph and Nicodemus, that the one 
was to obtain the governor's permission 
to take down the body, while the other 
should have in readiness the myrrh and 
aloes in which to swathe the corpse. 
Tholuck thinks that the body of Jesus 
had been already taken down from the 
cross by the soldiers, and was now- 
committed to Joseph. This can however 
be reconciled with Luke 23 : 53, only 
by supposing Joseph to have superin- 
tended the removal of the body from 
the cross, so that in common parlance, 
he may be said himself to have done 
the act. 

39. The words of the parenthesis, 
which at the first (i. e. at the beginning 



to Jesus by night,) and brought 
a mixture of myrrh and aloes, 
about a hundred pounds iveight. 

of our Lord's ministry) came, kc, 
contrast this present courageous act of 
Xicodemus, with the timid secrecy with 
which he first came to Jesus, as record- 
ed in 3 : 1. Taken in connection with 
the secret discipleship of Joseph spoken 
of in v. 38, it shows that the previous 
character and conduct of these two men 
were similar, and that in both a great 
and surprising change had now taken 
place. Luthardt, in his recent work on 
John's gospel, says, "the love of these 
two men was called out by the might of 
His love. His death is the power which 
constrains men." Myrrh and aloes, 
" not for embalming, which was not 
at this time a Jewish practice ; nor 
was it so much an antiseptic prepara- 
tion, as one intended to counteract as 
long as possible the natural effects of 
corruption (11:39); and used proba- 
bly with a view to the future opening 
of the tomb, and exposure of the re- 
mains when perfectly decayed." Web- 
ster and Wilkinson. About a hundred 
pounds weight. The Roman pound 
was about 12 oz. avoirdupois. The 
weight of this mixture w r as therefore 
about 75 pounds. The largeness of the 
quantity is to be attributed to the fact, 
that it was necessary to cover the 
bruised and lacerated body completely 
with this aromatic mixture, in order 
to prevent decomposition in the inter- 
val between this and the first day of 
the week, when the corpse was to be 
more thoroughly prepared against cor- 
ruption. Luthardt after Lange ob- 
serves, that the Evangelist mentions the 
weight of the spices, as a proof of the 
greatness of their love to Jesus. 

40. Then took they the body of Jesus, 
in order to swathe it in these spices, 
as here related. They had previously 
taken it down from the cross. With 
the spices. The first fold was so cov- 
ered with the myrrh and aloes, as to 
bring the spices in contact with every 
part of the body. As the manner of 
the Jews is to bury. "Little is known 



472 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



40 Then took they the body of 
Jesus, and ' wound it in linen 
clothes with the spices, as the 
manner of the Jews is to bury. 

41 Now in the place where he 
was crucified there was a garden ; 
and in the garden a new sepul- 
chre, wherein was never man yet 
laid. 

42 * There laid they Jesus 



Ac. 5 



m Is. 53 : 



n Ver. 31. 



with any certainty, except from these 
passages (see 11 : 44), of the Jews' or- 
dinary manner of burying." Alford. 

41. The word place, is not to be 
restricted to the immediate spot where 
Jesus was crucified, but to the vicinity. 
(See Matt. 14 : 15 ; Mark 1 : 35.) Hence 
it is not because they have forgotten 
this testimony of John, as Alford 
charges them, that certain persons ob- 
ject to the traditional site of the Holy 
Sepulchre, as so near to Calvary that 
" both are under the same roof." It is 
not likely that a rich man like Joseph, 
would have provided a tomb for him- 
self so near the "place of the skull," 
that both could be enclosed in one 
building. The fact also that it was in 
a garden planted with shrubs and trees, 
shows conclusively that it must have 
been some little distance from the 
place of the crucifixion. It was a 
remarkable coincidence, that Joseph 
should have been the owner of a new 
tomb, so near to the cross, that with- 
out delay or inconvenience, the body 
could be thus decently and honorably 
interred. Hence the verse begins with 
the slightly adversative but (not now, 
as it is erroneously translated), to show 
that this circumstance could not have 
been anticipated, as one of probable 
occurrence. A new sepulchre ; Matthew: 
his own new tomb, the same word being 
variously translated, tomb and sepulchre. 
Wherein was never man yet laid. This 

is recorded also by Luke (23 : 53, on 
which see Note). 

42. Therefore refers to the fact record- 
ed in the previous verse, that the tomb 
of Joseph was of convenient access 



therefore n because of the Jews' 
preparation day ; for the sepul- 
chre was nigh at hand. 

CHAPTER XX. 

THE a first day of the week 
cometh Mary Magdalene early, 
when it was yet dark, unto the 
sepulchre, and seeth the stone 
taken away from the sepulchre. 

a Mt. 2S : 1 ; Ma. 16:1; Lu. 24 : 1. 

and unoccupied. Some expositors er- 
roneously refer this illative particle to 
the following clause. Because of the 
Jews' preparation day being so near at 
hand, when it would be unlawful to 
bear away and deposit the body in the 
tomb, in consequence of its being re- 
garded by the Jews as labor forbidden 
on the sabbath. This shows why the 
next clause is introduced by for, to 
denote the reason of the pi*eceding act. 
It was not that Joseph's tomb was 
chosen as the final resting place of the 
remains of Jesus, but as a place in 
which, on account of its nearness to the 
cross, the body could be temporarily 
deposited without infringing on holy 
time which began at sunset. But in 
this hasty and unpremeditated selection 
of the tomb of Joseph, a great proph- 
ecy was fulfilled (Isa. 53 : 9), in regard 
to which see N. on Matt. 27 : 57. 

CHAPTER XX. 
1, 2. Mary Magdalene visits the 
sepulchre and returns to the city. 
Jerusalem. First day of the "Week. See 
Ns. on Matt, 18 : 1 ; Mark 16 : 2-4 ; 
Luke 24 : 1-3. A reference to these 
citations will show that Mary Magdalene 
was one of a company of women, who, 
at the close of the Jewish sabbath on 
the preceding evening, had prepared 
spices to anoint the body of Jesus, and 
in pursuance of this design had at an 
early hour repaired to the sepulchre. 
On their arrival there they found the 
body missing, and supposing it to have 
been stolen, Mary Magdalene left her 
companions there, and returned to the 
city to apprise Peter and John of what 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XX. 



473 



2 Then she runneth, and com- 
eth to Simon Peter, and to the 
h other disciple, whom Jesus loved, 
and saith unto them, They have 
taken away the Lord out of the 
sepulchre, and we know not where 
they have laid him. 

b Ch. 13 : 23 ; & 19 : 26 ; & 21 : 7, 20, 24. 

had happened. For the arrangement and 
harmony of the incidents of this visit of 
the women to the tomb of Jesus, the 
reader is referred to my Notes on Matt. 
28 : 1, 5, 7, 9 ; Mark 1G : 9. John makes 
no mention of the other women, on the 
principle referred to in harmonizing 
the accounts of the maniacs of Gadara 
(see X. on Matt. 8 : 28), because his 
narrative had reference only to the 
visit and return of Mary Magdalene. 
When it was yet dark, i. e. so dark that 
objects could hardly be discerned. So 
Matthew : as it began to dawn, i. e. at 
the early dawn, just as the eye begins 
to discern surrounding objects. Taken 
away, i. e. removed from the mouth of 
the sepulchre. Matthew and Luke em- 
ploy the words rolled away, in reference 
to the great size of the stone. Site run- 
neth in her excitement at the supposed 
abduction of the body of Jesus. Cometh 
to Simon Peter, &c. This shows that 
the apostles were together in some 
place well known to Mary, as she seems 
to have lost no time in finding them 
on her return. Webster and Wilkinson 
think that Peter and John lodged to- 
gether apart from the rest. This would 
account for the fact, that none of the 
other apostles accompanied them in 
this visit to the sepulchre. That other 
disciple, &c. See Xs. on 13 : 23; 18 : 
15. They have taken away. This nom- 
inative is omitted in the original, as is 
usual before certain verbs when a gen- 
eral or indefinite reference to persons 
or things is intended. The alarming 
fact that the body of Jesus was removed 
is thus rendered prominent ; while at the 
same time the ignorance of the speaker 
in regard to the circumstances of its 
abduction and the persons engaged in 
it, is implied. Mary and the disciples 
no doubt referred the act to the ene- 



3 c Peter therefore went forth, 
and that other disciple, and came 
to the sepulchre. 

4 So they ran both together : 
and the other disciple did outrun 
Peter, and came first to the sep- 

I ulchre. 

c Lu. 24 : 12. 

mies of their Lord, whom they suspect- 
; ed of having taken the body from the 
1 tomb, to heap indignities upon it, or at 
j least to secrete it from the pious ser- 
vice which the women were intending 
to perform. We know. The plural is 
j used in reference to the company of 
women, who, as we learn from the oth- 
er Evangelists, went with Mary Magda- 
| lene to the tomb. There is no necessity 
of supposing that Mary was accompa- 
nied on her return, as here related, by 
her female companions. It is quite 
clear from a comparison of the accounts 
of the visit, as given by the Synoptics, 
that she left them at the tomb, while, 
as here related, she returned to the city. 
See X. on Matt. 28 : 5. The conjecture 
of Alford, that Mary uses the plural we, 
as involving all the disciples in her own 
feeling of ignorance and consequent 
sorrow, is less natural than its refer- 
ence, as above said, to the women 
whom she bad left at the tomb. 

3. Tlierefore in consequence of this 
strange and startling intelligence. Went 
forth. The verb refers in the singular 
to Peter alone, who was the older and 
more leading disciple. The same verb 
is to be mentally supplied with the fol- 
lowing subject, the other disciple. The 
construction indicates the haste with 
which Peter rose up and went forth, 
followed in the outset by John, but soon 
outstripped by him, as related in the 
next verse. And came. This verb is 
the plural, and refers to both disciples. 
The imperfect tense gives the sense, 
proceeded on their way. 

4. So they ran, &c. Literally, but the 
two icere running together. The slight- 
ly adversative conjunction introduces 
an incident, somewhat unexpected from 
the preceding verse, in which Peter is 
represented as taking the lead, and 



474 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



5 And lie stooping down, and 
looking in, saw d the linen clothes 
lying ; yet went he not in. 

6 Then cometh Simon Peter 
following him, and went into the 

dCh. 19:40. eCh. 11:44. 



came first to the sepulchre, as the result 
of his superior swiftness of foot, in con- 
sequence probably of his being the 
younger man. 

5. He stooping down, &c. Although 
he came first to the sepulchre, yet his 
reverence did not permit him to enter. 
The tomb was probably so low as to 
render it necessary for one to stoop, in 
order to look fairly into the interior. 
Linen clothes or folds in which the body 
had been swathed for burial. Lying. 
The word here employed, denotes the 
orderly arrangement and folding up of 
these grave-clothes. This is brought 
more fully to view in the circumstantial 
detail in v. 7. Yet (although he saw 
that the body was missing) ivent he not 
in. As I have remarked above, he was 
restrained through a feeling of awe and 
reverence from entering the tomb, 
where had reposed the body of one 
whom he so revered and loved. His 
remaining without may also in part be 
attributed to the precedence, which as 
the older and leading disciple, he mod- 
estly yielded to Peter. 

6, 7. Peter now arrives at the tomb, 
and with his usual prompt and resolute 
spirit goes directly in, and is followed 
by John. Who but an eye-witness 
could describe with such full and exact 
detail these circumstances ? Napkin. 
See 11:44; Luke 19:20. That was 
about his head, when the body was en- 
tombed. The imperfect tense is very 
properly employed here to denote the 
state of the body when left in the sep- 
ulchre by Joseph and Nicodemus. See 
v. 12. Not lying, &e. The bandages in 
which the body had been swathed were 
saturated with the spices, and therefore 
the handkerchief bound around the 
head and comparatively unsoiled, was 
placed carefully by itself, so that it 
might retain its cleanliness. The order 
and care evinced in this arrangement | 



sepulchre, and seeth the linen 
clothes lie. 

7 And e the napkin, that was 
about his head, not lying with 
the linen clothes, but wrapped to- 
gether in a place by itself. 

of the grave-clothes, is remarked by 
many writers, to have been like that 
of a person leaving his sleeping apart- 
ment after an ordinary night's rest. 
There was no indication of haste or 
excitement in the occupant of the tomb, 
when he awoke to life and rose up from 
his recumbent position to come forth. 
" One object of this orderly disposition 
of the vestments, was to convince the 
disciples, that the body had not been 
carried off either by enemies or friends ; 
since in neither case would any thought 
or care have been bestowed upon the 
grave-clothes." Webster and Wilkin- 
son. Swathed as the corpse had been 
in reduplicated folds, a miraculous 
loosening of the bandages must have 
taken place, before the reanimated body 
was capable of self-motion. It is an 
idle and fruitless inquiry, whether this 
was effected by his own immediate 
power, or by the instrumentality of 
the angelic attendants. In either case 
the divine dignity of the occupant of 
the tomb, is evinced in a most eminent 
degree. See further on this point, 
Note on v. 12. In a place; literally, 
into one place, the preposition being 
pregnantly used for put into one place. 
There is also a word in the clause, 
which signifies apart, separate. The 
words one place, should therefore be 
referred to the place in the tomb, which 
was most suitable for this handkerchief 
so carefully folded and laid aside. 

8. It is unnecessary to suppose that 
any time intervened between the en- 
trance of Peter and John. The latter 
disciple probably went in immediately 
behind him, so that he saw with his 
own eyes the clothes in the position 
here described. If however it be 
thought, that the description which 
intervenes in v. 7, shows that John did 
not at first enter, we may suppose that 
as soon as Peter reported the state of 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XX. 



475 



8 Then went in also that other | 10 Then the disciples went 
disciple, which eame first to the away again unto their own home, 
sepulchre, and he saw, and be- i 11 ^| 9 But Mary stood without 
lievcd. at the sepulchre weeping : and as 

9 For as yet they knew not the ! she wept, she stooped down, and 
f scripture, that he must rise again looked into the sepulchre, 



from the dead. 

/Ps. 1G: 10 ; Ac. 2 : 25: —31 ; & 13 : 34, 35. 



things within the tomb, he joined his 
companion, and thus became an eye- 
witness of the facts here related. It 
must be remembered also, that he had 
previously looked into the tomb, and 
obtained a view of the condition of 
things, before Peter came up. He saiv 
that the body was gone, and that the 
grave-clothes were lying in the manner 
here related. And believed that Jesus 
was risen from the dead. This special 
reference to John shows that his faith 
was stronger and more active than that 
of Peter, or else that he simply de- 
scribes the state of his own mind, with- 
out any reference to his companion. 
This seems the more probable conjec- 
ture, in view of what is predicated of 
both in the following verse. 

9. For as yet,\. e. up to this time. This 
clause is explanatory of the fact, that 
they did not believe in the resurrection 
of Jesus, until they had ocular demon- 
stration of the fact. Both Peter and 
John are included in this state of pre- 
vious unbelief; and I cannot think, 
therefore, that they are not both to be 
regarded as yielding to the evidence, 
not simply that the body had been re- 
moved from the tomb, as Augustine, 
Bengel, Stier, and Ebrard, think — for 
belief in this fact so palpaple to the 
senses, would have been hardly worth 
a formal mention, nor would it have 
been belief, but absolute knowledge — 
but that their Master had risen from 
the dead, according to his previous 
declaration which they now called to 
mind. If any think that what is said 
in Luke 24: 11 militates against this 
faith of Peter and John in the resur- 
rection of Jesus, it may be replied that 
if these disciples were present on that 
occasion, it must have been before their 
faith was confirmed by the visit to the 



g Ma. 16:5. 



tomb, for we find in v. 10 that they 
went away from the sepulchre to their 
own home or place of abode. We 
have every reason however to suppose, 
that Peter aud John had left the city 
at the summons of Mary Magdalene, 
before the other women had returned 
and made their report to the apostles. 
See N. on Matt. 28 : 9. If the refer- 
ence to Luke 24: 12 would seem to 
indicate, that Peter's visit to the sepul- 
chre was the result of the report of the 
women whose " words seemed to the 
apostles like idle tales," it will be seen, 
that grouped with these women in v. 
10, is Mary Magdalene, whose report, 
as we learn from John, must have been 
made to Peter and his companion some 
time previous to that of the other 
women. They knew not, i. e. they 
comprehended not. The word scrip- 
ture, refers to the predictions which 
Jesus had made in regard to his own 
resurrection. See Matt. 16 : 21 ; 20: 
19; Mark 10:34; Luke 18:31-34. 
That he must rise again from the dead. 
The necessity was founded upon the 
immutable word and promise of God 
(Ps. 16: 10), upon the principle of life 
inherent in Jesus as the Eternal Son of 
God, and upon the redemptive economy, 
by which Christ was to rise from the 
dead and become the first fruits of them 
that are held in the power of the grave 
(1 Cor. 15 : 20). 

10. To their oicn homes ; literally, to 
themselves. Reference is had to their 
place of sojourn, for it must not be 
supposed, that they had a permanent 
place of abode in Jerusalem. Luke 
(24: 12, on which see Note) has the 
same form of expression, which is the 
more remarkable as being one of quite 
infrequent occurrence. 

11-18. Our Lord is seen by Mary 



476 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



12 And seeth two angels in 
white sitting, the one at the 
head, and the other at the feet, 
where the body of Jesus had 
lain. 

13 And they say unto her, 

Magdalene at the sepulchre. Jeru- 
salem. First day of the Week. This 
portion is peculiar to John, with the 
exception of v. 14, where the appear- 
ance of Jesus is the same as that spoken 
of in Mark 16: 9; and her report of 
having seen her Lord in v. 18, is that 
related in Mark 16: 10. 

11. But Mary. The slightly adver- 
sative conjunction presents Mary's tar- 
rying at the sepulchre, in contrast with 
the return of the disciples related in 
the preceding verse. Being unable to 
keep pace with Peter and John, she 
did not reach the sepulchre until they 
had left it, or were on the point of do- 
ing so. This will account for her being 
alone at the tomb, as here related. 
Stood; literally, was standing. She is 
represented as in a faxed and unmoved 
posture, like that of one overwhelmed 
with grief. Without, i. e. outside the 
sepulchre. At, i. e. in front of the 
door. As she wept ; literally, then as 
she wept, i. e. while standing in her 
grief thus before the sepulchre. She 
stooped down, &c. Literally, she bent 
forward to the sepulchre, i. e. in order 
to look into it. The original clearly 
has this pregnant sense. It was proba- 
bly in some interval of her passionate 
grief, that she thus cast her eyes into 
the tomb, where had lain the body of 
her Lord. 

12. And seeth two angels, &c. This 
is not the same angelic appearance re- 
ferred to in Matt. 28: 2-4; Mark 16: 
5-1 ; Luke 24: 4, but one subsequent 
and distinct by itself. They were 
doubtless the same angels, whose min- 
istry had been employed in rolling 
away the stone, and perhaps in placing 
in orderly arrangement the grave- 
clothes in which our Lord had been 
swathed for burial. That these angels 
had been detailed for this high service, 
does not at all conflict with what Alford 



"Woman, why weepest thou ? She 
saith unto then}, Because they 
have taken away my Lord, and I 
know not where they have laid 
him. 



suggests, that "it is no wonder if the 
heavenly hosts were variously and often 
visible on this great day i when the 
morning stars sang together, and all 
the sons of God shouted for joy.' " 
That there was an angelic ministration 
numbered by myriads, we have no 
reason to doubt (see Ps. 68: 11, 18), 
but we have no account that any of 
them were revealed to mortal vision, 
except the two mentioned here and in 
the other Evangelists. Sitting in reve- 
rential and calm repose, as though 
guarding the place from every un- 
worthy intruder. The one at the head, 
&c. The linen clothes marked the spot 
where the body of Jesus had lain, the 
napkin being at the head, and the linen 
clothes at the feet of the resting place 
of the body. Mark (16: 5) says that 
the angel seen by the women sat on the 
right side ; but both he and Matthew 
speak of the exact place where Jesus 
lay, as having been pointed out by the 
angel on that occasion. Thus there is 
a correspondency in the different nar- 
rations, which at first sight would seem 
somewhat conflicting. 

13. Nothing is here said about any 
fear which Mary experienced at sight 
of the angels, as is recorded of the 
other women (Mark 16:5; Luke 24 : 
5). Her grief and longing desire to 
see the body of her Lord, overmastered 
every sensation of fear, which at an- 
other time she might have felt, in see- 
ing these angels in white garments 
sitting thus within the sepulchre. How 
appropriate and natural are all these 
circumstances in the sacred narration. 
What impostor would have dai-ed to 
be thus minute in recording so wonder- 
ful a transaction? Woman. This 
shows that such an address was not one 
of disrespect, as is by some charged 
upon our Lord's address to his mother 
at the marriage in Cana (2 : 4). Why 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XX. 



477 



1-4 h And when she had thus 
said, she turneci herself back, and 
saw Jesus standing, and * knew 
not that it was Jesus. 

15 Jesus saith unto her, Wo- 
man, why weepest thou ? whom 

h Mt. 25 : 9 ; Ma. 1G : 9. 



weepest thou? 'There is no cause of 
grief,' they may have been on the point 
of adding. But Mary promptly and fear- 
lessly responds, that she wept because 
the body of Jesus had been removed, 
and she knew not where it had been 
laid. Simple and artless reply, speak- 
ing volumes of love for her dear de- 
parted Lord. The subject of the verbs 
have taken and have laid, are left to be 
supplied in the original, special stress 
being laid thereby upon the verbs, and 
Mary's ignorance of the persona who 
had removed the body being thus indi- 
cated. See X. on have taken, in v. 2. 
The singular / know not, conforms to 
the fact that she was now alone ; the 
we know not, in v. 2, refers to the fact 
that in her first visit she was in com- 
pany with the other women. Both 
here and in v. 2, the great point of 
Mary's grief is her ignorance of what 
had been done with the body. All her 
pious services and expressions of at- 
tachment to the wounded, broken body 
of her Lord, are now frustrated, and 
she is almost heart-broken with grief 
and disappointment. 

14. She turned herself back. Whether 
this movement resulted from a new 
and passionate burst of grief, which 
her true womanly instinct forbade her 
indulging in presence of the angels ; 
or whether a noise as of some one ap- 
proaching, arrested her attention and 
caused her to turn around, is uncei^tain. 
The latter is, I think, the more rea- 
sonable conjecture. Stier and Ebrard 
think that it was done with intent to 
go forth and weep again, or further to 
seek her Lord. But we can hardly 
suppose that she would have turned 
away thus abruptly from the tomb, in 
which were such resplendent angelic 
forms, unless under some sudden and 
uncontrollable impulse, like that above 



seekest thou ? She, supposing 
him to be the gardener, saith 
unto him, Sir, if thou have borne 
him hence, tell me where thou 
hast laid him, and I will take 
him away. 

* Lu. 24 : 16, 31 ; cb. 21 : 4. 



alluded to. She might well have ex- 
pected from them some answer to her 
words ; or at least she herself, who was 
so prompt to ask the supposed gardener 
where was the body of Jesus, would 
have proposed some such inquiry to 
the angels before leaving the sepulchre. 
Turned herself back, i. e. she turned 
around, so as to look in the opposite 
direction. A very natural movement, 
whether designed to give freer indul- 
gence to her grief, or to meet some per- 
son of whose approach and presence 
she had been made sensible. Saw Je- 
sus standing. He had approached her, 
and was now standing, as if ready to 
accost her, when he had gained her at- 
tention. And knew not, &c. The 
change of visage and general appear- 
ance which prevented Jesus from being 
at once recognized by his most intimate 
friends, is referred to in Ns. on Luke 
24: 16, 31. In the present instance, it 
may in part be accounted for, from the 
fact that Mary had no expectation of 
seeing him, and that her mental excite- 
ment was such as to impair the quick 
and accurate perception which other- 
wise she might have exercised. 

15. It is probable that Jesus imme- 
diately addressed her. Woman. See 
N. on v. 13. Why weepest thou? Pre- 
cisely the same inquiry which had been 
addressed to her by the angels. Whom 
seekest thou? The question w r as put 
thus directly, in order to elicit from 
her a direct reply, as to her object in 
thus visiting the tomb. The gardener, 
who had charge of the garden, in 
the precincts of which was the tomb. 
This shows that the habiliments of Je- 
sus were those of the common order 
of persons. It were an idle and useless 
inquiry, where, or in what way, he pro- 
vided himself with raiment. The stu- 
pendous miracle of his resurrection 



478 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 






16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. 
She turned herself, and saith unto 
him, Rabboni ; which is to say, 
Master. 

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch 
me not ; for I am not yet ascend- 



embraced all the minor details and inci- 
dents connected with the event, and 
should repress all vain speculations like 
the one here referred to. Sir. This 
in the original is the word for Lord, 
but our English version has it correctly 
Sir, it being the word employed in the 
respectful intercourse of common life. 
If thou have borne him hence. Nothing 
is more natural than this reply of Mary. 
She wastes no time in useless words. 
She goes into no detail of the death 
and burial of Jesus, nor speaks of his 
body as being gone. She does not 
even pronounce the name of him whom 
she sought. Her whole soul is filled 
with this one longing desire, to find 
the body, and render it those marks of 
love and honor which her deep obliga- 
tions to him impelled her to bestow. 
The construction of the original is such 
as to show, that Mary thought it quite 
likely, that the supposed gardener had 
been concerned in the removal of the 
body. This opinion she may have en- 
tertained the more readily from the 
fact, which was probably known to all 
the friends of Jesus, that his body was 
only temporarily placed in Joseph's 
tomb, until some other disposition 
could be made cf the remains. Hence 
from the sepulchre. I will take him 
away, i. e. have him removed. Here 
outspeaks the loving, grateful heart. 
She will herself take charge of the 
body, and suffer it no longer to lie upon 
their hands, a burden or encumbrance. 
She does not wait to consult with the 
apostles or her female friends, as to 
what shall be done with the body, thus 
suddenly and unexpectedly removed 
from the sepulchre. She takes all the 
responsibility upon herself. If no one 
else will share her pious duty, she is 
ready to discharge it independent and 
alone. Noble woman ! The church to 



ed to my Father : but go to * my 
brethren, and say unto them, *I 
ascend unto my Father, and your 
Father ; and to m my God, and 
your God. 

h Ps. 22 : 22 ; Mt 23:10:Eo. 8: 29; He. 2:11. 
^Ch. 16:28. wEp. 1:17. 

the end of time shall embalm thy 
memory, and point to thee as the most 
loving and faithful of that devoted 
band, who 

" — while apo3tles shrunk could dangers 

brave, 
Last at his cross, and earliest at his grave." 

The repetition of the pronoun him, 
when the name of Jesus had not yet 
been mentioned by her, gives great 
tenderness to her pathetic appeal. 
There is also in the original, an em- 
phatic contrast between the thou, in 
the first member, and /, in the third. 
It is as though she had said, 'if thou 
hast now the body in charge, /will re- 
lieve you of that office.' In the second 
member, the pronoun has no emphasis, 
being omitted in the original. 

16. Jesus saith, &c. There was that 
in his tone and manner of address 
which caused Mary, at the sound of her 
name, to turn herself more fully around, 
so as to have a distinct view of the 
person who so familiarly addressed her. 
She turned herself, &c. Literally, hav- 
ing turned she saith, &c. Her recogni- 
tion of Jesus was sudden and complete. 
She had no doubt of his personal pres- 
ence. In a transport of joy, she ex- 
claims Rabboni, my great Master. Only 
once before is Jesus recorded to have 
been addressed by this most honorable 
title, and that by Bartimeus (Mark 10: 
51). The form of address is well suited 
to the excited feelings of the speaker, 
who in this one word expresses her love 
and devotion to her crucified but now 
risen Lord. Luthardt remarks: "It 
was the former name with which he 
called her: His former appellation in 
which she replied ; and now she seeks 
to renew the former intercourse." 

17. Touch me not, &c. There have 
been many conflicting views in regard 



A. D. S3.] 



CHAPTER XX. 



479 



■ x 



to the nature of this prohibition, re- 
sulting not from any obscurity in the 
language, but from the reason given in 
the following clause, for I am not yet 
ascended, kc. The more common and 
perhaps the best founded interpreta- 
tion, may be expressed in the para- 
phrase of Doddridge: "Do not stay 
here to embrace me now, either to pay 
thy homage to me, or to confirm th 
faith, both which thou wilt have other 
opportunities of doing ; for I am not 
yet withdrawn from your world, and 
ascended to the heavenly court of my 
Father, as you imagine I shall presently 
do, but I shall yet continue for a little 
while on earth, and give you further 
opportunities of seeing me again ; let 
nothing therefore detain thee any longer 
but go immediately to my dear brethren 
and say unto them," &c. Such is sub- 
stantially the sense given to the pas- 
sage also by those sound and excellent 
expositors, "Webster and "Wilkinson. 
The objection urged against this sense 
from the verb touch, which should in 
that ease have been more appropriate- 
ly, cling around, embrace, hang to 
one's knees, or a verb of similar sense, 
is not of much weight, for the tense of 
the verb here made use of, is not that 
employed of an act only once performed 
— a simple touch and nothing more — 
but denotes continuance of action, be 
not touching, and the verb is used for 
the sake of imparting emphasis to the 
injunction : ' do not tarry even to touch 
me, but hasten on your way to my 
brethren, and report to them, that I 
have risen, and will soon ascend to my 
Father and theirs.' So far from fur- 
nishing an argument against this inter- 
pretation, the verb here made use of is 
the very one, which most appropriately 
and emphatically expresses this senti- 
ment. 

Olshausen says that this explanation 
must be deemed obsolete, and may 
therefore be dimissed at once. But 
what shall we say of such a summary 
rejection of the only common sense 
interpretation of the passage, and the 
approval of this commentator of Schlei- 
ermacher's fanciful explanation : " when 
the Saviour at first appeared unto Mary, 



[ he then, as if fearful and susceptible, 
i his glorified life being new to him, said, 
j touch me not, kc, but after a few days, 
| he presented himself to Thomas, and 
required him heartily to test the reality 
of his body, to thrust his hand into his 
j side, kc. ? " It will be a new idea to 
most English readers, that our Lord 
j when he first rose from the dead, shrunk 
back with timidity and sensitiveness 
from the touch of any of his friends, 
until, having become used to his "glori- 
fied life," he of his own accord invited 
Thomas to "heartily test the reality 
of his body." It would be a suffi- 
cient refutation of this exposition, to 
refer to Matt. 2S : 9, where it appears 
that on the very morning of his resur- 
rection, and probably prior to his ap- 
pearance to Mary Magdalene, he per- 
mitted the women to whom he appeared 
while on their way to the disciples, to 
"hold him by the feet," and embrace 
his knees in reverential prostration. A 
reference also to Luke 24 : 39, will 
show that on the evening of the day in 
which he rose from the dead, he chal- 
lenged the examination of the disciples 
as to the actual verity of his resurrec- 
tion : "Behold my hands and my feet, 
that it is I myself; handle me and see." 
This does not seem very consistent 
with a theory, which refers the prohibi- 
tion of Mary to touch him, to the fact 
that he was in a process of glorifica- 
tion, which rendered him so " fearful 
and susceptible," that he did not per- 
mit himself to be freely touched until 
his interview with Thomas, eight days 
after his resurrection. Xo proof what- 
ever is furnished in the Xew Testament, 
that in the interval of his resurrection 
and ascension, our Lord was undergoing 
a transition from the possession of a 
body, having all the gross corporeal 
elements which it had previous to its 
entombment in Joseph's sepulchre, to 
the etherialized, spiritual, glorified body 
with which he aseended to heaven. 
Whether the change took place, as we 
have no doubt it did, at the time of 
his ascension from Olivet, or when he 
came forth from the tomb, it was be- 
yond all question instantaneous and 
complete, like that which shall pass 



480 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



upon his followers who shall be alive 
on the earth at the time of his second 
appearance, when they " shall be chang- 
ed at the last trump in a moment in the 
twinkling of an eye " (1 Cor. 15 : 51, 52), 
and " be caught up in the clouds to meet 
the Lord in the air" (1 Thess. 4: 17). 

Alford and some others take a differ- 
ent view of the prohibition here given. 
With some minor diversities of intei*- 
pretation, their expositions all agree in 
referring this touching to one purely 
spiritual, when he should have ascended 
to heaven in his glorified body. Thus 
Alford : " The sense seems to me to be 
connected with some gesture, indicat- 
ing that she believed she had now got- 
en Him again, never to be parted from 
Him. This gesture he reproves, as un- 
suited to the time and nature of His 
present appearance. 'Do not thus — 
for I am not yet restored finally to you 
in the body — I have yet to ascend to 
the Father.' This implies in the back 
ground another and true touchinc/, when 
He should have ascended to the Father." 
This same expositor after Archdeacon 
Wilberforce, cites approvingly Leo the 
Great (Serm. lxxii. 4): "I would not 
have you come to me in bodily-wise, nor 
recognize me by carnal touch ; I put 
you off to something higher, I prepare 
you for something greater ; when I am 
ascended to my Father, there you shall 
touch me in a more true and perfect 
manner, when you shall lay hold of that 
which you do not touch, and believe 
that which you do not behold." 

Prof. Crosby refers it to Christ's prom- 
ised spiritual presence : " Christ had 
declared (John 16 : 1G) that he would 
go to the Father, and then in a little 
while come again to his disciples, 
meaning that he would come by the 
Spirit (John 14: 10-18). Mary seems 
to have considered his presence after 
his resurrection as this coming, and 
runs to grasp him. Jesus gently re- 
bukes her by saying, Touch me not — 
this is not a time for intimate commu- 
nion, nor is this my promised coming, 
for / am not yet ascended to my Father, 
and my promised coming was to be 
after that." But it appears quite im- 
probable that in the short lapse of 



time -which intervened between the 
paschal supper and the resurrection of 
Christ, a time too of agitation, alarm, 
and despondency, the body of the dis- 
ciples, including Mary and her female 
companions, had been made acquainted 
with the promise of Christ's spiritual 
coming, made to the apostles in the 
guest-chamber, as detailed in 14: 16-13. 
Even if this promise had been reported 
to Mary, is it reasonable to suppose, 
that agitated as she was by this sudden 
and unexpected appearance of Jesus, 
she would have given a moment's 
thought to any thing save the sense of 
his actual presence ? To have connected 
this appearance of Jesus with his prom- 
ised spiritual presence, would have im- 
plied a process of calm reflection, which 
the circumstances of the case forbid our 
supposing Mary capable at this time of 
pursuing. I cannot therefore adopt 
this view of my highly valuable and 
learned friend, principally on the ground 
that it departs, like many other exposi- 
tions of this disputed passage, too far 
from the sense which lies upon the 
face of the text, and which accords 
with the circumstances of the occasion. 

Stier largely discusses this passage, 
citing in full the numerous expositions 
given of it by commentators from Au- 
gustine down to the present time. He 
takes our Lord's words, as a sublime 
and profound declaration — " ' No, thus 
it was not designed!'' enforced from 
Him by the opposition between the 
heavenly feeling of his own mind and 
the earthly feeling of Mary's spirit. — 
Thou shaft possess me again, but not 
as before, it shall be from this time and 
forever in the Spirit. The time of ex- 
alted and divine relationship is come." 
These citations of opinions might be 
extended, but enough has been quoted 
to show, how various are the views of 
expositors on this much controverted 
passage. 

For I am not yet ascended, i. e. I am 
not about to ascend immediately. This 
stands as the reason why Mary was not 
at this time to indulge in acts and ex- 
pressions of attachment to her risen 
Lord. He had not yet ascended to his 
Father, and hence there would be ample 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XX. 



481 



time and opportunity for her to evince 
ber love and gratitude to him. Xo 
reason can be given which will stand 
the test of sound criticism, why Mary 
should have been repelled from touch- 
ing our Lord, or as the tense of the 
verb indicates, of clinging to him, ex- 
cept that which refers it to the great 
love which he bore to the other disci- 
ples, to whom he would have her con- 
vey the joyful intelligence of his resur- 
rection, without any delay of the nature 
here referred to. This is natural, sim- 
ple, appropriate, and in keeping with 
all the surroundings of the occasion. 
Mary sees, and at the sound of his voice 
recognizes her Lord. With the ejacu- 
lation, Rabboni, she rushes in a trans- 
port of joyful surprise to cling to his 
knees in the manner of oriental homage, 
but is immediately checked by her Lord, 
as though he had said : ' Waste no 
time, Mary, in expressions of attach- 
ment, which you will have time and 
opportunity of bestowing upon me be- 
fore my ascension ; but go at once to 
my brethren, and bear this message, 
that I have risen from the dead, and 
ascend (i. e. am soon to ascend) to my 
Father, and their Father, and to my God 
and their God.'' What can be more 
natural, and simple, than this explana- 
tion of the passage. Indeed it seems 
to me, that its simplicity has been a 
principal reason, why so many eminent 
interpreters have rejected it for some- 
thing more profound and hidden from 
the common apprehension. 

I am the more confirmed in this view 
from Matt. 28 : 9, where it is expressly 
said, that " the women came (i. e. ap- 
proached him), and held him by the feet, 
and worshipped him." Would Mary of 
Magdala have been denied a privilege, 
so freely accorded to her female com- 
panions, unless for the special reason, 
that she was to bear his message with 
all haste to his disciples? It is not 
enough with Sticr to say, that these 
women touched our Lord with a differ- 
ent spirit and meaning, and therefore 
were permitted to do what was denied 
to her. This is mere assumption desti- 
tute of all proof, and therefore inadmis- 
sible. It must be apparent to every 
Vol. III.— 21 



reader, that Mary was in as suitable a 
frame of mind as any one of the com- 
pany of disciples, to enjoy the tokens 
j of her Lord's favor in the way accorded 
to the other women, had he not re- 
quired her service as a messenger to 
his brethren. 

As our Lord had graciously styled the 
disciples his "brethren," he speaks of 
God as their common God and Father. 
See Heb. 2: 11, 17. At the same time, 
the my and your, instead of the com- 
mon our, indicate an essential differ- 
ence in the relations to the Father sus- 
tained by Christ and his followers. 
Cyril of Jerusalem says: "Mine in one 
sense, by nature ; yours in another, by 
privilege." So Augustine : "He is my 
Father, by nature, and your Father, by 
grace." Ambrose makes the same dis- 
tinction. But if the Father was such 
to the Son by nature, by a parity of 
reasoning may not the same be said of 
the relation expressed by my God? 
Would not the Son be thus rendered 
subordinate in his essential deity to the 
Father? Dr. Schaufller, after remark- 
ing that the great object of this pas- 
sage is to set forth the divinity of 
Christ, and our participation of the 
divine nature in Him, thus paraphrases 
it: "Such is the connection which 
will for ever exist between me, the 
risen Saviour, and you, my believers, 
that the Father to whom I ascend is 
your Father, because he is my Father, 
and my God, because he is your God. 
My manifestation in the flesh, the unit- 
ing myself into one with the body of 
the church as her inseparable Head 
(Eph. 1 : 22, 23), makes me for ever 
participate in lier creature relation 
(compare 1 Cor. 15 : 28), and her, in my 
eternal relation to the Sacred Trinity, 
proper allowance being made for the 
eternal difference between the Creator 
of all, and the most privileged creature 
of his hand, the chosen object of his 
tenderest and strongest affection." The 
verb ascend, i3 the present. / am as- 
cending, as though his forty days on 
earth to enable his disciples to be wit- 
nesses of his resurrection, were includ- 
ed in the act of ascension. So Alford : 
"lam ascending, the same as / am on 



482 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33: 



18 n Mary Magdalene came and 
told the disciples that she had 
seen the Lord, and that he had 
spoken these things unto her. 

19 f ° Then the same day at 
evening, being the first day of 
the week, when the doors were 
shut where the disciples were 

nMt. 28:10 : Ln. 24:10. 
o Ma. 1G : 14 ; Lu. 24 : 36 ; 1 Co. 15 : 5. 

my way? Kinkel's hypothesis of the 
immediate ascension of our Lord, after 
his interview with Mar}-, is hardly worth 
refuting. Neither the language, I am 
not yet ascended, nor the context, jus- 
tifies such an idea of an immediate 
ascension and immediate return to 
earth, prior to the ascension from 
Mount Olivet, as related in Mark 16 : 
19 ; Luke 24 : 51 ; Acts 1 : 9. Aside 
from our Lord's spiritual coming after 
his glorification, there was to be but 
one other advent of his, and that was 
to take place at the judgment of the 
last day. We pass by much also that 
might be objected to Krnkel's hypo- 
thesis, from an Eesthetical view of the 
events here related. 

18. This verse synchronizes with Mark 
16 : 10, on which see Note. That she 
had seen, &c. The fact that she was 
not permitted to touch her Lord, did 
not in the least shake her faith in his 
actual resurrection. The message to 
the apostles with which she was in- 
trusted was an honor far greater than 
that which was forbidden her ; just as 
the tangible demonstration of his pres- 
ence given to Thomas, was a far less 
thing than the not seeing and yet 
believing (v. 29). It appears from Mark 
16 : 11, that the disciples did not be- 
lieve her report; although this may 
have been said of the company in 
general, for if Peter and John were 
present from their visit to the tomb, 
they at least could hardly have doubted 
the fact of his resurrection. 

19-23. Jesus appears in toe midst 
op the apostles. Jerusalem. Evening 
following the first day of the Week. 
TJien or therefore, in accordance with 



assembled for fear of the Jews, 
came Jesus and stood in the 
midst, and saith unto them, 
Peace he unto you. 

20 And when he had so said, 
he shewed unto them his hands 
and his side. p Then were the 
disciples glad, when they saw the 
Lord. 

p Cli. 16 : 22. 

the fact just related, that Jesus had 
arisen, and conversed with Mary Mag- 
dalene. The same day, i. e. on the first 
day of the week. This is added to 
show that our Lord's appearance to the 
apostles, was on the very day of his 
resurrection. At evening. It must 
have been when the evening was some- 
what advanced, for his appearance to 
the disciples on their way to Emmaus 
had taken place previously, and it 
was not until the day was far spent 
(Luke 24: 29) and they were sitting at 
supper, that he had made himself known 
to them. After this they returned to 
the city, found the eleven gathered to- 
gether, and rehearsed to them the 
strange intelligence of what took place 
by the way, and how Jesus " was known 
of them in breaking of bread" (Luke 
24 : 35). It was not until after all 
these things had taken place, that Je- 
sus himself appeared to the disciples 
in the way here mentioned. When the 
doors were shut, &c. This whole subject 
as to whether there was any thing mi- 
raculous in our Lord's entrance to the 
room, is fully discussed in N. on Luke 
24: 36, 38, to which the reader is re- 
ferred. Suffice it here to say, that my 
views there expressed in regard to the 
actual, tangible, bodily appearance of 
our Lord, are confirmed by all my subse- 
quent investigations, and I would there- 
fore give more emphatic expression of 
this opinion, rather than diminish aught 
of what I have written. It is the 
great and fundamental fact of the gos- 
pel, and any interpretation which re- 
gards the appearance of Jesus, on this 
or any other occasion during his 
forty days on earth after his resurrec- 



A. D. 83.] 



CHAPTER XX. 



483 



21 Then said Jesus to them 



oMt. 23:15; ch. 17:19,10; He. 3:1; 2 Ti. 

2:2. 



tion, as one in a spiritual rather than a 
material body, should be rejected, as 
leading to an error which would under- 
mine the very foundation on which 
Christianity reposes. See 1 Cor. 15 : 
14, IT. In addition to what has been 
said in my Notes on Luke 24 : 36, 38, I 
will only take occasion to remark, that 
even if it be granted that he entered 
the room through a closed door, it is 
an objection to his possession at the 
time of a veritable body of flesh, bones, 
and blood, no more valid than his 
walking upon the waves of the sea of 
Galilee, in view of which the disciples 
cried out, supposing they had seen a 
spirit (Matt. 14: 20; Mark 0:40). A 
reference to the supernatural in both 
instances furnishes a far more satisfac- 
tory solution of the difficulty, than a 
denial of his corporeality. For fear of 
the Jews, They had reason to fear that 
the meeting would be interrupted by 
their enemies. That they were at this 
time particularly watched by them, 
there can be no doubt; and this closing 
of the doors was therefore intended as 
a protection against spies and inform- 
er-, rather than against any immediate 
violence. Stood in the mtdst, ko. See 
X. on Luke 24 : 36. It appears from 
that Evangelist, that the disciples were 
filled with extreme terror, supposing 
that they were looking upon a spirit. 
The construction of the words stood 
in the midst, slightly varies from that 
made use of in Luke. In John it is 
stood hdo the midst, with the pregnant 
sense, approached into the midst and 
there stood. The same prepositional 
construction is found in 21 : 4. 

20. lie showed them, &c. The reason 
is found in Luke 24 : 37-40. Hishands 
and his side, i. e. the wounds made by 
the nails and spear. The pronoun his, 
in the first instance, is unnecessarily 
italicized in the common version, the 
pronoun in the original belonging to 
both words. Then at this display of 
his sacred person, which dispelled all 



again, Peace be unto you : q as my 
Father hath sent me, even so send 
I you. 

doubt from their mind of his actual 
resurrection. Were the disciples glad. 
According to Luke, their joy was so 
great at his sudden and unexpected ap- 
pearance, as to almost destroy their 
belief in its reality. The Lord, i. e. our 
Lord. See X. on 4 : 1. 

21. TJten said Jesus to them again, 
&c. " lie confirms the salutation which 
he made on appearing, in the full sig- 
nificance of the words, as a real prom- 
ise and blessing, not as a mere form of 
speech; and so reminding them of his 
discourse, 14:27; 16:33." Webster 
and Wilkinson. As ray Father, &c. 
The comparison is here founded on 
the relation which -h-.-u.i sustained to 
the father, as His authorized messen- 
ger to man, and the relation of his 
apostles to him, as bis accredited am- 
lors to their fellow-men. Noth- 
ing beyond this is intended to be con- 
veyed in the comparison. What ground 
then have Webster and Wilkinson for 
saving, " we cannot without presump- 
tion extend the comparison to the mis- 
sion and commission of others who have 
not been personally, or by revelation, 
appointed by the Lord himself?" The 
promise in Matt. 28 : 20, embraces in 
its comprehensive sweep and circuit, 
all Christ's ministers down to the end 
of time ; and while it is true, that there 
Were certain special gifts and functions 
bestowed only upon the apostles, yet 
of all things, the very last which we 
should think of confining to their 
small circle, would be the grand com- 
mission here denoted by the words, 
even so I send you. What the above- 
named expositors say, that no such lan- 
guage is used by the apostles in refer- 
ence to their ordination of succeeding 
ministers, is no argument in favor of 
its restricted application to them, for 
it would have been the most intolerable 
presumption for them to have employed 
such language. They in their own 
name or self-originating authority, sent 
none forth as ministers of the word. 



484 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



22 And when ho had said this, 
he breathed on them, and saith 
unto them, Receive ye the Holy 
Ghost : 

23 r Whosesoever sins ye re- 
mit, they are remitted unto them ; 

r Mt. 10 : 19 : & 18 : IS. 



It was Christ himself who through 
them as his agents, commissioned all 
upon whom they laid hands and conse- 
crated to the ministerial office. For 
them to have used language indicating 
that, as Christ had been sent of the 
Father, and they of Christ, so now they 
sent forth these messengers of salva- 
tion throughout the world, would have 
been an arrogance of authority, such 
as was never assumed by a true disciple 
of Jesus. 

22, 23. These verses are peculiar to 
John, and are well placed by Dr. Rob- 
inson immediately after Mark 16: 15- 
22. When he had said; literally, hav- 
ing said, the emphasis being reserved 
for the following verb. He breathed on 
them. A symbolic act, denoting the con- 
ferral of the Holy Ghost according to 
his promise. Not that the promise is 
here fully accomplished, for this did 
not take place until the Pentecostal 
effusion of the Spirit ; but it was a 
precursor and pledge of that which was 
so soon to be realized in all its abun- 
dant fulness and richness. This breath- 
ing forth is in beautiful accordance with 
what is said in 15 : 26, that the Spirit 
proceedeth forth in His work from the 
Father and the Son, although this was 
not to take place, until the ascension of 
Jesus to his glorified state in heaven 
(16:7). Whosesoever sins ye remit, 
&c. The key to the right understand- 
ing of this promise, which must in the 
nature of the case be limited to the 
apostles, may be found in my Note on 
Matt. 16: 19, this being only a varied 
promise given directly to all the apos- 
tles, of what was on that occasion 
promised to Peter, and through him as 
their representative to all the rest, and 
afterwards (Matt. 18 : 18) confirmed to 
all. The remission of sins in the high- 
est and most proper sense, is the prc- 



and whosesoever sins ye retain, 
they are retained. 

24 But Thomas, one of the 
twelve, s called Didymus, was not 
with them when Jesus came. 



s Ch. 11 : 1G. 



rogative of God alone. But in a de- 
clarative sense, or as the constituted 
expounders of the will of God, they 
had the right conferred upon them to 
shut and to open, to loose and to un- 
loose, to remit and to retain, and from 
their decision there was to be no ap- 
peal. Webster and Wilkinson well say, 
that " the absolute power of forgive- 
ness, or condemnation, was not vested 
in them, any more than the power to 
perform miracles, although this was 
conferred in similarly unqualified terms." 
Alford refers this in its highest and 
most far-reaching sense, to the power 
of discernment of the hearts of men 
possessed by all Christ's ministers and 
all private Christians, in proportion as 
any disciple shall have been filled with 
the Holy Spirit of wisdom. This may 
be implied in the passage, but its 
special reference is to those extraordi- 
nary powers with which the apostles 
were invested, and which rendered their 
words and decisions of binding authori- 
ty in the church of Christ. That in a 
qualified sense this power is lodged in 
the constituted authorities of the Chris- 
tian church in all subsequent time, 
there can be no doubt, but not in the 
high and special sense in which it was 
given to the apostles, or in which it is 
blasphemously claimed by the Roman 
pontiff. They are retained; literally, 
they have been retained, the perfect in 
consequent clauses having the import 
of the present, especially when as here 
employed to designate a state or con- 
dition permanent and unalterable. 

24-26. Jesus appears in the midst 
of the Apostles, Thomas being pres- 
ent. Jerusalem. Evening following 
the first day of the Week next after 
the Resurrection. This section is found 
only in John, and was designed evi- 
dently to show how abundant and con- 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XX. 



485 



25 The other disciples there- 
fore said unto him, We have seen 
the Lord. But he said unto them, 
Except I shall see in his hands 



vincing were the proofs of our Lord's 
resurrection, enough so as to overcome 
the unbelief of Thomas, expressed in 
the strong and positive terms recorded 
in v. 25. Webster and Wilkinson 
adduce it also as an example of the 
"candor of the Evangelic writers, in 
not concealing the difficulty which 
men felt in believing the fact of the 
resurrection, however well attested." 

24. But is here continuativc with a 
plight adversative sense. The strong 
and decided adversative is not the one 
here employed in the Greek. An ex- 
ample of unbelief was to follow the dis- 
sipation of all doubt, resulting from 
the appearance of Jesus as recorded in 
vs. 19-23. It was the unbelief, however, 
of one who was sincerely attached to Je- 
sus, but whose despondency was too 
great to yield to any evidence in regard 
to his Lord's resurrection, except that 
which was cognizable by his own 
senses. Hence there is no opposition of 
sentiment, which called for the strong 
adversative conjunction to introduce 
the narration. Thomas. See N. on 
11 : 16. One of the twelve. The orig- 
inal number is retained for the sake of 
reference, although the defection of 
Judas had left only eleven. Was not 
with them. An unfavorable inference 
has been drawn from this absence of 
Thomas from the company of the 
apostles. He is often referred to, as an 
example of one who loses the enjoy- 
ment of his Saviour's presence, by ab- 
senting himself from stated meetings 
for prayer and religious conversation. 
Perhaps this is an unwarrantable infer- 
ence from the absence of Thomas on 
this occasion. It is certainly unsuscep- 
tible of proof, as no reason whatever 
is given for his absence. It may have 
been necessary, or otherwise ; and it 
were useless to frame conjectures in 
reference thereto, especially as the 
writer of the Gospel makes no allusion 
whatever to the cause of his absence. 



the print of the nails, and put my 
finger into the print of the nails, 
and thrust my hand into his side, 
I will not believe. 



Alford rejects the idea, that he was 
absent through inadvertence or occupa- 
tion in other matters. " On such a 
day, and in such a man, such an ab- 
sence must have been designed. Per- 
haps he had abandoned all hope ; — the 
strong evidence of his senses having 
finally convinced him, that the pierced 
side and wounded hands betokened 
such a death, that revivification was im- 
possible." 

25. Therefore, as was natural after 
having themselves seen Jesus. Said 
unto him, perhaps on that very night; 
certainly, on the first occasion of meet- 
ing him. Except I shall see, &c. Web- 
ster and Wilkinson think that they 
told Thomas, that Jesus had shown 
them his hands and his side. But in 
that case, we should have expected in 
the original, the emphatic pronoun 7". 
The reference of Thomas to those parts 
of the body, is to be attributed rather 
to his vivid remembrance of those 
ghastly wounds, and the evidence there- 
by furnished that his Lord was actually 
dead, and consequently still held in 
the embrace of death, notwithstanding 
what the disciples might say to the con- 
trary. They had doubted the fact as 
reported to them by the Avomen (Luke 
24 : 11), but the unbelief of Thomas was 
less excusable, inasmuch as he had the 
additional testimony of the ten apos- 
tles, who had seen Jesus, and whose 
doubts had been all removed in the 
way mentioned in Luke 24 : 39, 40. 
There is in Ihe words of Thomas a ful- 
ness of expression, that strongly indi- 
cates the positive character of the man, 
and the absence in him of every thing 
bordering on credulity. The sudden 
dissipation of all doubt from such a 
mind, is one of the strongest proofs 
which can bo furnished, of the over- 
whelming evidence which the apostles 
had of the resurrection of Jesus. The 
word finger, conforms to the smaller 
wounds in his hands, while the expres-. 



JOHN. 



[A. D.- 33. 



26 And after eight days again 
his disciples were within, and 
Thomas with them : then came 
Jesus, the doors being shut, and 
stood in the midst, and said, 
Peace be unto you. 

27 Then saith he to Thomas, 
Reach hither thy finger, and be- 

sion thrust my hand, has reference to 
the wound made by the spear. The 
feet of our Lord are not referred to, 
from the evident inconvenience of 
stooping so low, as to apply the test 
here spoken of to those parts of the 
body. / will not believe that he has 
risen from the dead. 

26. After eight days, i. e. one week 
after the day of his resurrection. 
The disciples had probably assembled 
on each of the intermediate days. Our 
Lord, however, honored this meeting 
with his personal presence, and thus 
laid the foundation for the honor and 
sanctity with which, the first day of 
the week, or the Lord's day, has ever 
since been regarded by the Christian 
world. Again, in reference to his 
previous appearance related in v. 19. 
Were within doors, as on the former 
occasion, and Thomas with them. This 
is particularly mentioned, on account 
of the absence of that disciple at the 
previous meeting (v. 24), and because 
the narrative has sole reference to 
the removal of his unbelief. TJien 
came Jesus ; literally, Jesus comes. The 
asyndeton in the original imparts viva- 
city to the narration. Olshausen, with- 
out good reason, supposes this appear- 
ance of Jesus to have taken place in 
Galilee. The doors being shut. See 
Ks. on v. 19; Luke 24:36, 38. The 
repetition of this circumstance is un- 
doubtedly designed to show, that al- 
though the disciples met in privacy 
through fear of their enemies, yet no 
concealment sufficed to prevent his 
knowledge of the place where they as- 
sembled, nor closed doors to bar his 
ready access to them. Stood in the 
midst. See N. on Luke 24 : 36. Peace 
be unto you. See N. on v. 21. ] 



hold my hands ; and ' reach hither 
thy hand, and thrust it into my 
side; and be not faithless, but 
believing. 

28 And Thomas answered and 
said unto him, My Lord and my 
God. 

1 1 Jo. 1 : 1. 



27. It is highly probable that the 
confirmation of Thomas' faith, was 
our Lord's first act on the occasion 
of this interview. The particle here 
translated then, denotes the order or 
series of things, and is employed by 
Demosthenes and some other Greek 
writers, of a succession of events ac- 
cording to the formula, first, then, 
again, afterwards. Our Lord's Avords, 
reach hither thy finger, &c, conform 
to the expression of Thomas' unbelief 
in v. 25. The words behold my hands, 
have the pregnant sense, ' examine my 
hands both by sight and touch.' Reach 
hither thy hand. See N". on v. 25. 
Thrust it into my side ; better and more 
literal, bring your hand to my side, as 
his finger had been previously directed 
to be placed upon his hands. In re- 
gard to Alford's unwarrantable conjec- 
ture, that our Lord's resurrection body 
was bloodless, see K on Luke 24 : 39. 
Be not faithless, &c. "Not merely, 
' Do not any longer disbelieve in my 
resurrection,' but, ' Be not (do not be- 
come), as applied generally to the spirit- 
ual life, and the reception of God's 
truth, faithless, but believing. " Alford. 
This expositor is right also in drawing 
the inference from because thou hast 
seen me (v. 29), that Thomas did not 
actually apply his finger or his hand to 
our Lord's body. The sight of Jesus 
produced instantaneous and overwhelm- 
ing conviction of the reality of his re- 
surrection. 

28. My Lord and my God. This is 
not an exclamation, as the Socinians 
view it. No such exclamations were 
in vogue among the Jews. The words 
were addressed to, and not of or con- 
cerning Jesus ; nor, as Alford well re- 
marks, can my Lord be in any manner 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XX. 



487 



29 Jesus saith unto him, Thom- 
as, because thou hast seen me, 
thou hast believed : " blessed are 



referred to another than Jesus. The 
irrelevance of such an exclamation, in 
the hearing of one so much loved, and 
of whose presence Thomas had just 
been convinced, is also well urged 
against such a view ; to which we may 
add, that so irreverent an exclamation 
could scarcely have escaped the rebuke 
of our Lord, whereas his only censure 
of Thomas is in regard to his tardiness 
of belief. There can then be no 
doubt, that this is a confession of the 
faith of Thomas — one of the most full 
and explicit utterances of belief in our 
Saviour's divine Messiahship, which had 
as yet been made by any of the apostles. 
This confession was the result not only 
of our Lord's presence in bodily and 
tangible form, but of the evidence of 
his omniscience furnished in the repe- 
tition of the very form of words, in 
which Thomas had on a previous occa- 
sion given utterance to his unbelief. 
" Thus John in the very close of his 
Gospel (see vs. 30, 31), iterates the tes- 
timony with which he begun it — to the 
Godhead of the Word who became 
flesh ; and by this closing confession, 
shows how the testimony of Jesus to 
Himself had gradually deepened and 
exalted the apostles' conviction from 
the time when they knew him only as 
the son of Joseph (1 : 4G), till now 
when he is acknowledged as their Lord 
and their God." Alford. 

29. Thomas. Our Lord addresses him 
by name, in order to call his special 
attention to the weighty truth which he 
was about to utter. See N. on Luke 
10:41. Because, kc. There is a vein 
of censure in these words, not because 
Thomas had so readily yielded to the 
evidence of his Master's resurrection, 
furnished by his personal presence, but 
because he had so persistently refused 
to receive this great fact on the testi- 
mony of his fellow-disciples. To a few 
only, who were to be his witnesses of 
this cardinal truth of Christianity, did 
he show himself, a risen and living 



they that have not seen, and yet 
have believed. 



m2Co. 5:7:1Pc. 1:S. 



Saviour ; to all others of the great 
family called by His name, the fact of 
his resurrection is a matter of faith, 
being received by them as true, on the 
testimony of those who were favored 
with a sight of Him, after he rose from 
the dead. If any are disposed to regard 
it as an inferior privilege, to accept this 
truth through faith rather than sight, 
this great utterance of Jesus should 
fully correct such an erroneous view. 
The words blessed are they, by the an- 
tithesis have the force of, more blessed 
are they. Webster and Wilkinson well 
express the sentiment : " Blessed above 
Thomas are they, in the possession of 
such enlightened minds, as to be able 
to believe on sufficient evidence like 
that which had been offered to him, 
but which he had rejected, requiring to 
be convinced by his own personal ex- 
perience, the testimony of his bodily 
senses." Iliat have not seen, i. e. al- 
though having not seen. "All the ap- 
pearances of the forty days were mere 
preparations for the believing without 
seeing." Stier. A word of explana- 
tion in regard to the tenses of the verbs 
here employed, seems necessary. The 
perfect hast believed, is employed in- 
stead of the present, thou believest y 
because the reference is had to the 
origin of his belief, in the actual 
sight with which he had just been 
favored. The tense in have believed, is 
the aorist, and the form is participial, 
blessed (are) they, not having seen and, 
(yet) having believed. This is a general 
truth proleptically spoken of all be- 
lievers in every subsequent age, and 
the aorist indicates their present condi- 
tion of belief, founded on a past and 
ever enduring act of faith. These 
tenses in the original give great life 
and emphasis to the assertion of our 
Lord. 

30, 31. These verpes together with 
21 : 25, may be regarded as a kind of 
anticipatory conclusion of the Gospel 
according to John. The word rendered 



488 



JOHN. 



[A. D. S3. 



30 ^f * And many other signs 
truly did Jesus in the presence 
of his disciples, which are not 
written in this book : 

31 y But these are written, that 

truly, in our common version, -would be 
better translated yea, indeed, and is de- 
signed to introduce a disclaimer on the 
part of the Evangelist, against any in- 
ference of bis readers, that he had nar- 
rated all the signs and proofs of the 
divine mission of Jesus. Signs is not 
to be referred, as Lucke, Olshausen, 
and others think, to the great miracle 
of his resurrection, but to his general 
miracles, not reported by John, but here 
recognized by him as having been abun- 
dantly performed in the course of our 
Lord's ministry. Alford includes also in 
the expression, the miracles performed 
by Jesus after his resurrection. There is 
no objection to this view. In the pres- 
ence of his disciples, and of which they 
were therefore competent witnesses. In 
this book, i. e. in this Gospel. But these 
are written. Keference is had to those 
miracles which John has recorded. 
That ye may believe, &c. This clause 
gives the reason why the Evangelist 
reported certain miracles of Jesus. It 
furnishes the key to the principle on 
which he made the selection of those 
to be recorded in his Gospel. His 
object being to prove the divinity of 
Jesus Christ as God's Eternal Son, such 
miracles only were selected as would 
most clearly demonstrate and enforce 
this great truth with which his Gospel 
was formally commenced. And that 
believing, &c. This is the grand and 
glorious result of belief in Jesus' Mes- 
siahship. A living faith in Him as the 
Son of God and Saviour of men, is life 
eternal through his name and divine 
mediation. In his name. "Eternal 
life is obtained by believers in virtue 
of Him, upon the claim established by 
Him in whom they believe." Webster 
and Wilkinson. 

CHAPTER XXI. 
1-24. Jesus snows Himself to seven 
of the Apostles at the Sea of Tibe- 



ye might believe that Jesus is 
the Christ, the Son of Grod ; z and 
that believing ye might have life 
through his name. 

x Ch. 21:25. yLu.l:4 

sCh. 3:15, 1G; &5:24; 1 Pc. 1 : 9. 

mas. Galilee. This whole chapter is 
peculiar to John, and is styled by Al- 
ford the Appendix to his Gospel. Its 
authenticity has been doubted by many, 
who have been more rash than just in 
their criticisms; or whose prejudices 
have warped them from the true and 
scholarly laws of interpretation, which 
should be applied in test of the genu- 
ineness of the chapter. The style and 
cast of thought are eminently charac- 
teristic of John. It forms a portion 
of his Gospel, which, had it been omit- 
ted, would not only have made the 
conclusion abrupt and unnatural, but 
impressed every intelligent and pious 
reader with a feeling that something 
was lacking to give completeness to the 
narration. The external or historical 
evidence of its authenticity is strong 
and abundant. It is found in all the 
MSS. and Versions. Stier says, that 
no one in the whole church doubted of 
its genuineness until Grotius, and his 
objection arose mainly from the appa- 
rent conclusion of the Gospel with 
chap. XX. But is it not far more 
natural to suppose, that John, under 
the guidance of the Spirit, added an- 
other of the signs which Jesus did in 
confirmation of the faith of his disci- 
ples, even when he had apparently 
brought his work to a close, than to 
dissever en grounds so trifling, a chap- 
ter which bears such striking resem- 
blance both in matter and style to the 
other writings of John ? Alford is so 
clear and discriminating on this point, 
that I cannot forbear to e.uote him in 
full: "I am fully convinced that this 
chapter was written by John. In every 
part of it, his hand is plain and unmis- 
takable ; in every part of it, his char- 
acter and spirit is manifested in a way 
which none but the most biassed can 
fail to recognize. I believe it to have 
been added some years probably after 
the completion of the Gospel; partly 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XXI. 



489 



CHAPTER XXI. 

AFTER these things Jesus 
shewed himself again to the 
disciples at the sea of Tiberias ; 
and on this wise shewed he him- 

self. 

2 There were together Simon | 
Peter, and Thomas called Didy- | 
mus, and a Nathanael of Cana in 

a Cli. 1 : 45. 

perhaps to record the important mira- 
cle of the second draught of fishes, so \ 
full of spiritual instruction, and the in- j 
teresting account of the savings of our ; 
Lord to Peter ; but principally to meet j 
the error which was becoming preva- j 
lent concerning himself. In order to 
do this, he gives a complete account, j 
with all the minute details, — even to 
the number of the fish caught, — of the 
circumstances preceding the conversa- 
tion, — and the very words of our Lord 
himself; not pretending to put a mean- 
ing on those words, but merely assert- 
ing that they announced no such thing 
as that he should not die." Luthardt 
regards the two last verses as added by 
the Ephesian church. But his argument 
from the " we know" of v. 24, is cer- 
tainly counterbalanced by the "/sup- 
pose" of v. 25. See X, on v. 24. 

1. After these things. See Xs. on 
5:1; 6:1. Some expositors consider 
this as referring to another lapse of 
eight days (according to the Jewish 
mode of reckoning time). But the 
indefinite after these things, would in 
that case have hardly been substituted 
for the after eight days of v. 26. There 
is also reason to conjecture, that more 
than a week elapsed before Jesus 
showed himself as here related, al- 
though, as Stier suggests, it was most 
probably on the first day of the week, 
or our Sunday. This would give two 
weeks as the interval between the ap- 
pearance in 20 : 26, and this at the sea 
of Tiberias, or three weeks from the 
time of his resurrection. Xineteen 
days would then remain for his inter- 
views with his disciples in Galilee, and 
his subsequent return to Mount Olivet, 
Vol. III.— 21* 



Galilee, and h the sons of Zebe- 
dee, and two other of his dis- 
ciples. 

3 Simon Peter saith nnto 
them, I go a fishing. They say 
unto him, We also go with thee. 
They went forth, and entered into 
a ship immediately; and that 
night they caught nothing. 

6 Mat. 4: 21. 

from which he made his ascension. 
Showed himself. This form of expres- 
sion is nowhere else found in John, and 
seems to be of grander import than 
the simple verb appeared. Stier re- 
marks, that it involves the characteris- 
tic of these appearances, as dependent 
on the will of Jesus. At the sea; lite- 
rally, on the sea, i. e. on the shore of 
the sea. Tiberias. See X. on 6: 1. 
On this wise, or thns. Luthardt re- 
marks, that this clause points to the 
significance of all that is to follow. 

2. It appears from this verse, that 
there were seven of the disciples pres- 
ent on the occasion here referred to. 
It is not singular, that while waiting for 
Jesus in Galilee, the disciples should 
have separated into small parties, and 
resumed, in some instances at least, 
the calling, which, as a means of liveli- 
hood, they had formerly pursued. We 
can hardly suppose, that they would 
quarter themselves upon their friends, 
without doing something for their own 
support, or to assist those with whom 
they were tarrying. The company here 
spoken of, seem to have been those 
whose former vocation was that of 
fishermen. 

3. I go a fishing. The key to this 
proposal of Peter, is hinted at in the 
preceding verse. The disciples may 
have been under the necessity of pro- 
viding in whole or part for their own 
support ; or what is more likely, they 
did not wish to be burdensome to those 
with whom they were tarrying. Such 
we know was the feeling which pos- 
sessed Paul, and caused him to labor 
with his own hands in order to admin- 
ister to his necessities (Acts 20 : 34 ; 



490 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



4 But when the morning was 
now come, Jesus stood on the 
shore ; hut the disciples c knew 
not that it was Jesus. 

5 Then d Jesus saith unto them, 
Children, have ye any meat ? 
They answered him, No. 

c Ch. 20 : 14. d Lu. 24 : 41. 



18 : 3). Peter and bis companions did 
not enter upon this nightly labor for 
purposes of gain — much less through 
impatience at the dilatoriness of Jesus 
in making bis promised appearance. 
They preferred to engage in useful la- 
bor rather than to remain idle, while 
waiting for the manifestation of their 
Lord, in obedience to his injunction 
(Matt. 28: 1G). We also go with thee. 
His companions express their readiness 
to go with him, and share his toils. 
Into a ship ; literally, the ship, perhaps 
the one they had formerly owned ; or 
at least one which lay there with all 
the necessary fishing apparatus at their 
service. Immediately. They were 
prompt and energetic men, who would 
not let the hours of the night — the 
most advantageous time for fishing — 
pass away unimproved, when once 
they had made up their mind to spend 
it in the manner here spoken of. The 
Greek verb translated caught, is the one 
commonly employed by John, and indi- 
cates his authorship of the chapter. See 
1 : 30, 32, 44 ; 8 : 20 ; 10 : 39 ; 11 : 57. 

4. The morning, i. e. the morning 
hour between daybreak and sunrise. 
See Ns. on Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; 
Luke 24: 1. Jesus stood on the shore. 
The preposition is one which gives the 
pregnant construction : came and stood 
upon the shore. But the disciples knew 
not, &c. Some refer this to the imper- 
fect light of the early dawn, or to the 
mist which lay upon the lake. But it 
is better to explain the circumstance 
by Luke 14: 1G (on which see Note). 
That it was; literally, that it is. A 
similar sequence of tenses is found in 
1:40. 

5. TJien Jesus saith. Alford says 
that this is in John's manner. Indeed 



6 And he said unto them, e Cast 
the net on the right side of the 
ship, and ye shall find. They 
cast therefore, and now they were 
not able to draw it for the multi- 
tude of fishes. 



Lu. 



4, 0, 7. 



the chapter is fully after the style of 
our Evangelist. Children. See 1 John 
2: 18; also 13: 33, where the diminu- 
tive little children, is employed as a 
term of endearment. This would have 
been unsuitable in calling persons at a 
distance, as Jesus called to his disciples 
from the shore. Have ye any meat, i. e. 
any thing to eat. The inquiry indicated, 
that the stranger who stood on the 
shore, wished to purchase from them 
his morning meal. The word rendered 
meat, is literally, that which is eaten in 
addition to, i. e. food eaten with bread. 
Addressed as the inquiry was to fisher- 
men, they would readily \mderstand it 
as referring to fish, and inferentially to 
food in general, or that which is eaten 
with fish. 

6. This direction of the stranger to 
cast their net upon the right side of 
the ship, must have awakened in their 
minds the remembrance of a former 
command of similar import. This may 
account in part for their ready obedi- 
ence to the counsel here given, although 
we cannot help saying with Lampe, 
that "the power of the Lord was in- 
clining their mind" to obedience to his 
command. Ye shall find fish. The 
direction is brief and positive. The 
language admits of no doubt as to the 
result. Therefore in obedience to the 
stranger's direction. Not able ; literal- 
ly, no longer able as before, when they 
had drawn their empty net. The re- 
sistance gave evidence of the great 
haul of fish which they had made. To 
draw it into the ship. The drag or 
draw-net, thrown in a semi-circle and 
drawn to the shore or ship by each 
end, is the one here referred to. See 
N. on Matt. 12:41. For; literally, 
from, on account of. 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XXI. 



491 



7 Therefore f that disciple whom 8 And the other disciples came 
Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It in a little ship, (for they were not 
is the Lord. Now when Simon far from land, but as it were two 
Peter heard that it was the Lord, | hundred cubits,) dragging the net 
he girt his fisher's coat unto him, j with fishes, 
for he was naked, and did cast 
himself into the sea. / ch - 13 : 23 ; & 20 : 2. 



7. TJierefore. The abundant draught 
which followed the stranger's speeiiic 
direction, reminded John of the former 
occasion, when at the "word of Jesus 
they cast their net with a similar result. 
It flashes upon his mind with instanta- 
neous conviction, that it is his beloved 
Lord. If the words cast the net, had 
awakened any presentiment of this in his 
breast, he is now confirmed in his con- 
jecture, and he can no longer keep si- 
lence. It was not, as some cold and 
skeptical critics affirm, because that he 
was younger and therefore endowed 
with keener vision than Peter, that he 
first recognized Jesus. It was because 
his faculties were all alive to whatever 
pertained to the Master whom he so 
much loved. " The tenderest love has 
the first and surest instinct of the object 
beloved." Stier. Saith unto Peter, his 
most confidential friend. See N. on IS : 
25. It is the Lord, or by force of the 
article, it is our Lord. See N. on 4 : 1. 
M^en Simon Peter (his name is fully 
given on account of the remarkable man- 
ifestation of his ardent love for Jesus 
here related) heard ; literally, Simon Pe- 
ter having heard from John. The clause 
that it was the Lord, may be rendered 
it is the Lord, the very form of words 
made use of by John. The construc- 
tion would then be : having heard (the 
words of John), ' it is the Lord. 1 This 
imparts great vivacity to the narration, 
and indicates the sudden transport of 
affection, which prompted Peter to cast 
himself into the sea and swim to the 
shore, as here related. He girt, i. e. 
he fastened the garment tight about 
him with a girdle or belt, in order that 
it might not impede him in swimming. 
This shows that he was collected in his 
movements. Fisher's coat. While em- 
ployed in fishing he had disrobed him- 



self of all clothing, except the garment 
worn next to the skin. He now resumes 
his outer garment or tunic, but not 
necessarily a fisher's coat, i. e. a gar- 
ment which fishermen alone wore. Stier, 
with Driiseke, notices " the reverence 
which observes, even at such a moment 
of excited feeling, the petty proprieties 
of clothing." For lie teas naked, not 
absolutely but comparatively so. He 
had divested himself of his upper gar- 
ment, which would have impeded his 
movements, in casting and hauling the 
net, and in working the vessel. It is 
offensive to the laws of decency, to 
take this in a literal sense, of absolute 
nudity. Dr. Thomson (Land and Book, 
vol. ii. p. 81), in answer to the question, 
whether Peter was actually naked while 
engaged in fishing, replies: "Not neces- 
sarily so. In this hot climate, however, 
it is common to fish with nothing but a 
sort of shawl or napkin tied around 
the waist. The fisher's coat which he 
girt about him, was the short abdyeh 
which they now wear, and which they 
very often lay aside while fishing. 
They can doff it in a moment. When 
worn, it is girt about the loins with 
the zunnar, and Peter did this when 
hastening to meet the Lord." Lid 
cast himself into the sea. This shows 
that the water was not so shallow 
as to permit his wading to the land. 
Equally opposed is the language made 
use of, to the belief of some, that 
the power to walk upon the water 
was vouchsafed to him, which his weak 
faith had on a former occasion pre- 
vented his possessing. The form of 
expression is always used oi into the 
sea, instead of on the sea. See Matt. 
4:18; Mark 9 : 32 ; Acts 27 : 38. 

8. Other disciples in reference to 
Peter. The preposition in, denotes the 



492 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



9 As soon then as they were 
come to land, they saw a fire of 
coals there, and fish laid thereon, 
and bread. 

means by which these disciples ca.me 
to the shore, namely, in the little ship. 
They were in a common fishing boat. 
For the j were not, &c. This parenthetic 
clause is introduced to show why they 
did not draw the net on board the ship. 
They were so near the land, that they 
could more easily and conveniently 
draw the net to the shore. Two hun- 
dred cubits, i. e. about one hundred 
yards. This shows that with the morn- 
ing dawn, they were making for shore, 
when Jesus hailed them as related in v. 
o. The miracle of the fish was greatly 
enhanced from the fact, that they had 
left the deeper waters of the lake (Luke 
5 : 4), and Avere now in the more shal- 
low portion near the shore, where fish, 
and especially large ones, are seldom 
found in numbers. With fishes ; liter- 
ally, of fishes, a pregnant form for full 
of fishes. See v. 11. This abundant 
haul, is also indicated by the word 
dragging, which implies exertion to 
overcome great resistance. 

9. It is the opinion of the soundest 
commentators, that this fire of coals 
was miraculously provided ; although 
there have not been wanting some very 
respectable expositors who think that 
it may have been provided by Peter, 
or by other fishermen, who after having 
placed fish upon it, left it opportunely 
for the use of Jesus and his disciples. 
It is preposterous to suppose that Peter 
could have reached the shore, and kin- 
dled the fire before the other disciples 
came to land ; and even had he been 
able to do this, the question would still 
remain, where he obtained the fish 
which were in the process of being 
cooked, and the bread. Still more ab- 
surd is the reference of this fire and 
the provisions, to a service performed 
for our Lord by other fishermen, to 
whom he had previously revealed Him- 
self. There is but one rational solution, 
and that is to refer this fire of coals 
and the provisions, to the miraculous 



10 Jesus saith unto them, 
Bring of the fish which ye have 
now caught. 



agency of Him, who had before changed 
water into wine at a wedding festival, 
and who had supplied the wants of 
thousands almost famishing with hun- 
ger, from a few loaves and fishes. It 
is an idle inquiry, whether he provided 
this fire and food by his own direct, 
creative agency, or by the ministration 
of angels. As to what Stier says, that 
it seems " more decorous to introduce 
the service of the ever-ready angels," 
it is certainly very presumptuous for us 
to pretend to decide what is decorous 
or otherwise, in matters so far beyond 
the domain of human knowledge. Por 
wise reasons, the ministry of angels 
may be employed at one time in the 
production of an effect, and at another, 
the result may be secured by the direct 
fiat of the Almighty. The law w^as 
given on Sinai through the ministry of 
angels (Ps. 68 : 17 ; Gal. 3:19); but the 
reason did not appear until it was re- 
vealed in Heb. 2 : 2, 3. These things 
are above our knowledge, and where 
revelation stops, there we shall do well 
to check all presumptuous speculation 
and inquirv. 

10. Bring of the fish, &c. This di- 
rection recalled the attention of the 
disciples to the miraculous draught of 
fish, which in their joy at seeing Jesus, 
they had temporarily forgotten. It is 
unnecessary to suppose, that any of the 
fish which they caught were placed on 
the fire and cooked with those already 
provided by Jesus. "We are rather 
to refer this command of our Lord to 
an orderly securing and disposal of the 
fish which they had caught, before they 
took their morning repast. Thus an 
important economical lesson is taught 
in regard to the gifts of God's provi- 
dence, which are not to be squandered 
or left to disuse and waste, when given 
as they are for the beneficent purpose 
of supplying the wants of His creatures. 
Which ye have now caught. He recog- 
nizes their instrumentality, as his agents 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTEK XXI. 



493 



11 Simon Peter went up, and 
drew the net to land full of 
great fishes, a hundred and fifty 
and three : and for all there were 
so many, yet was not the net 
broken. 

in casting the net and drawing it to the 
shore. At the same time, there is a 
strongly implied contrast between the 
fish in the net, and those which to their 
wondering gaze were laid upon the fire 
of coals. Now is the adverb of time, 
and stands opposed to the fruitless la- 
bors of the preceding night. 

11. Simon Peter went tip, i. e. he 
went on board the boat, which had now 
been brought to the shore. It had not 
yet been hauled up on the dry beach, 
as was usual with such small craft, inas- 
much as the great draught of fish, en- 
closed in the net which was attached 
to the ship, would have rendered this 
difficult of performance. It may well 
be supposed also, that the disciples in 
their eager haste to see their Lord, 
would leap out upon the shore, the mo- 
ment they had brought the boat to 
land. Drew the net to land. It had 
been left in the water, but now with 
the assistance of his fellow-disciples, 
Peter draws it to land. An hundred 
fifty and three. The count took place 
cither at the command of Jesus, or 
from their own wish to preserve the 
remembrance of the great miracle. 
Was not broken. Reference seems to 
be had, in the notice taken of this 
faet so remarkable, when the great 
strain upon the meshes of the net is 
considered, to the giving way of the 
seine on the former occasion. See 
Luke 5 : 6. 

12. After the disciples in obedience 
to the command of Jesus had drawn 
the net to land and taken therefrom 
the fish, they were graciously invited to 
partake of the meal now in readiness. 
The verb rendered dine, is not to be 
taken in the sense of a mid-day meal, 
for although some time must have been 
consumed in the labor of landing and 
securing their fish, yet the morning 
hour could hardly have passed away. 



12 Jesus saith unto them, 
9 Come and dine. And none of 
t&ti disciples durst ask him, Who 
art thou ? knowing that it was 
the Lord. 

g Ac. 10 : 41. 

The word in its earliest use was em- 
ployed of the morning repast, as may 
be seen in every good Greek Lexicon. 
None of the disciples, &c. In silent and 
wondering astonishment they partook of 
the food so mysteriously provided for 
them. They were well assured that it was 
none other than Jesus himself, who pre- 
sided at the meal. But no one of the 
number, not even the ardent, impetuous 
Peter, or the beloved disciple, or the 
"Israelite in whom was no guile" (1 : 
47), or Thomas, remarkable alike for 
his courageous devotion to his Master 
(11 : 16), and his subsequent doubt and 
despondency ("20 : 25), or the staid, so- 
ber, dignified James, durst' propose any 
question, which would elicit from him 
a reply as to who he was, how or 
when he had come to the Lake, and 
what his future movements were to be. 
He seems to have assumed an air of maj- 
esty and command, which repressed any 
approach to him in the manner of for- 
mer intimacy, and free interchange of 
thought. The God-man stood fully re- 
vealed before them ; and while their 
hearts were surcharged with love and 
joy, they nevertheless looked upon 
Him with an awe and reverence, not 
unlike that which the adoring saints 
may be supposed to feel, as they gaze 
upon his glory and majesty, when seated 
at the right hand of His Father in 
heaven. It is doubtful whether our 
Lord himself partook of the meal, or 
broke the silence by a single word. 
Stier and others think that he omitted 
to pronounce the customary blessing 
for a prophetic reason. 

Some expositors who make this a 
joyous and conversational meal, can 
find in this extreme of silence no use 
or meaning. But may not this appear- 
ance of Jesus and all its attending 
circumstances, have been designed to 
symbolize great prophetic truths ? The 



494 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



toiling all night without success, and 
the casting the net on the right side at 
the command of Jesus, may •without 
violence be referred to the labors of 
Christ's ministers, who in preaching the' 
word, are thus taught to labor on even 
in the midst of the most discouraging 
circumstances, and to rest assured, that 
in his own time and manner, He whose 
commission they bear, will give them 
that measure of success, which is in ac- 
cordance with His sovereign will and 
pleasure. How could the disciples help 
recalling to mind the great command 
and promise, made on the occasion of 
their call to discipleship, in Matt. 4: 19 ; 
Mark 1 : 17 ; Luke 5:10? This was a 
symbolical representation of the ener- 
gy, industry, perseverance, and reliance 
upon God for success, which were to 
characterize their labors with the gospel- 
net, "to catch men." The "fire of 
coals, and fish laid thereon, and bread," 
indicate his providential supply of all 
their wants," while they are engaged in 
his service ; yet not independent of 
their own exertion, as is evinced by 
his command to them to bring the 
net ashore, in which direction was un- 
doubtedly included the sorting out and 
counting of the fish which they had tak- 
en. This twofold miracle of the draught 
of fishes, and the Droiled fish and bread 
made ready for their repast when their 
labors were ended, symbolize the fideli- 
ty, zeal, and reliance upon Christ for 
success, with which the apostles and all 
who succeed them in the ministry of 
the word, were to labor in the work of 
saving souls, and the watchful provi- 
dence with which He in whose service 
they are engaged, will supply all their 
temporal and spiritual wants. The great 
truth here symbolically taught, was 
repeated in the compendious promise, 
"Lo I am with you always," &c, in 
Matt, 28 : 20. To bring out in bold 
and striking relief this truth, was mani- 
festly one design of the Spirit of inspi- 
ration in appending this chapter to the 
Gospel, seemingly brought to a close in 
the preceding chapter. Stier also finds 
in this interview of Jesus with his dis- 
ciples, "a type of that nearness and 
fellowship, to which the Lord would in 



I future times condescend in His invisible 
relations with His people." 

In regard to some of the minor feat- 
ures of the transaction, such as the 
recorded fact, that in this great draught, 
the net was not broken, and the throw- 
ing the net on the right side, we would 
observe the same general rule, which 
should govern us in the exposition of 
parables — not to seek for a spiritual 
significancy in features which were 
merely designed to give verisimilitude 
to the narration. It gave a more im- 
pressive view of our Lord's omnis- 
cience, to designate the very spot where 
they were to throw the net, than 
though it had been cast at random. 
This was heightened by the fact that 
they were so near the shore, where 
large fish in such numbers were least 
likely to be. Nothing but divine om- 
niscience could have foreseen that a net 
thrown in that particular locality and 
so close to the shore, would have enclos- 
ed so many large fish. This is the evi- 
dent design of this feature of the trans- 
action. Yet Augustine thinks the cast- 
ing the net on the right side is referable 
to the elect; and Grotius finds in the 
abundant draught near the shore, where it 
was least to be expected, the blessing of 
the Apostles' preaching among the hea- 
then. As to the fact that the net was not 
broken, it is obviously a part of the mira- 
cle, which would have been incomplete 
if not in a measure defective, had the 
net given way under the great pressure, 
and its struggling prey in numbers had 
escaped. It is a well-known fact, that 
in large hauls of fish, as well as in the 
ensnaring of great flocks of birds 
beneath the springing net, the meshes 
frequently give way, and the captured 
prey in greater or less numbers escape ; 
but in the present instance, not a strand 
of the net was broken, or a single 
fish escaped. So marked an incident 
was worthy of being recorded, and en- 
hances the miracle, as being in no re- 
spect defective or imperfect. But some 
expositors find here a significant con- 
trast with the breaking of the net on a 
former occasion (Luke 5 : 6), which 
they refer, to the schisms and rendings 
of the net of the gospel, by men who 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XXI. 



495 



13 Jesus then cometh, and 
taketh bread, and giveth them, 
and fish likewise. 

14 This is now h the third time 
that Jesus shewed himself to his 
disciples, after that he was risen 
from the dead. 

h See ch. 20 : 19, 26. 

pull, some to the right and some to the 
left, which even begun in apostolic times 
(1 Cor. 1:11; 11:19), and the great and 
glorious ingathering from the sea of na- 
tions, which in the latter day shall be 
made to the Lord Jesus Christ, the 
end of which will be a feast of most 
gracious fellowship with Him, an anti- 
type of the Lord's supper, an early 
meal of the great resurrection morning 
which will be followed by a permanent 
day of eternal joy. (Stier.) All such 
expositions are fanciful, and tend to 
weaken the impression which would 
otherwise be made by the great and 
living features of this remarkable ap- 
pearance of our Lord, to the narration 
of which John has seen fit to devote a 
whole chapter. 

13. Jesus then cometh from the place 
where he was standing when he called 
to the disciples (v. 5). The connective 
then, logically refers to the invitation 
given in the preceding verse. In ac- 
cordance with that invitation, he ap- 
proaches the place where the food is 
in readiness, and as the master or head 
of a family, takes and distributes it 
among his disciples. 

14. The third time, in reference to the 
previous appearances of our Lord to the 
disciples when collected together. He 
had showed himself also to the women 
who went to the sepulchre (Matt. 28 : 9), 
and to Mary of Magdala (John 20 : 14- 
11). 

15. It is quite evident, as above re- 
marked (N. on v. 12), that this extra- 
ordinary meal was eaten in silence. 
But now at its close, our Lord proposes 
a question to Peter, which must have 
brought immediately and vividly to his 
remembrance all the circumstances of 
his deplorable fall. Although Jesus 



15 ^T So when they had dined, 
Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Si- 
mon, son of Jonas, lovest thou 
me more than these ? He saith 
unto him, Yea, Lord ; thou know- 
est that I love thee. He saith 
unto him, Feed my lambs. 



had predicted this lapse of his disciple, 
in presence of the whole company 
(13 : 38 ; Matt. 26 : 34 ; Mark 14 : 30 ; 
Luke 22 : 34), yet he had made no al- 
lusion whatever to it, in his previous 
appearances to his disciples. It was 
meet, however, that some notice should 
be taken of this defection of Peter, 
and this our Lord proceeded now to 
do. "There was no formal rebuke ut- 
tered, for the matter was already for- 
given ; this asking about his love was 
at farthest a most gentle and affec- 
tionate reproof." Stier. Simon, son 
of Jonas. This reference to his parent- 
age, was doubtless intended to remind 
him of the imperfection which cleaves 
to all by natural descent or earthly re- 
lationship. See N. on Matt. 16 : IV. 
" He would remind him of his entire 
past from birth upwards, of his natural 
humanity, but especially of the lament- 
able fall which had originated in the 
Simon, and not in the Peter." Stier. 
More than these. There can be no 
doubt that the pronoun these, refers to 
the disciples, for a reference to the 
fish or to the fishing utensils, is too 
low and gross to suit the wants of the 
passage and occasion. The only ques- 
tion then is, whether the translation 
should be more than (thou lovest) these, 
or more than these do. That the latter 
is the true interpretation, seems very 
clear from the whole context, and 
especially from its evident correspond- 
ence to Peter's boast of superior fidel- 
ity over all others, made at the time 
when our Lord predicted his fall (Matt. 
26 : 33 ; Mark 14 : 29). It would have 
been little for Peter to say, that he 
loved his Master better than he did his 
fellow-disciples. But when the ques- 
tion is directly put to him, whether he 



496 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



16 He saith to him again the second time, Simoo, son of Jonas 

Webster and Wilkinson, on the other 
hand, find a descending gradation, the 
lambs, a term of endearment, being 
given first, and then in the repetition of 
the charge, the less emphatic term, 



loved his Lord with a more ardent and 
unchanging affection, than did John, or 
James, or the other disciples who stood 
by, the memory of his past sin pre- 
vents him from a direct reply, and he 
can only find heart to say, Yea, Lord ; 
thou knowest that I love thee. The 
verb rendered love, in Peter's reply, is 
one of lower significancy, than the one 
thus translated in our Lord's question. 
' Lovest thou me with that high and 
holy love, which is due to me as the 
Son of God and Saviour of men?' 
Peter through consciousness of weak- 
ness and ill desert replies, ' thou 
knowest that I love thee, as a poor 
weak mortal may love his best friend, 
although far below the pure and holy 
love, which is due to thy exalted char- 
acter.' Feed my lambs. Our Lord 
does not here reinstate Peter in the 
apostolic office, for of this he had not 
deprived him ; but he confirms and 
encourages him in the official duties 
which were before him, and which he 
may have felt that he had forfeited by 
his denial of his Master. For lambs, 
in the second and third reply of our 
Lord is substituted the word sheep. 
Alford's reading is lambs, sheep, little 
sheep as a turn of endearment. He 
finds therefore a gradation in the re- 
sponses of our Lord, a higher and 
more spiritual setting forth of Peter's 
service being successively indicated. 
"Perhaps the feeding of the lambs was 
the furnishing of the apostolic testimony 
of the resurrection and facts of the 
Lord's life on earth to the first converts ; 
the shepherding or ruling the sheep, the 
subsequent government of the church, 
as shown forth in the early part of the 
Acts ; the feeding of the little sheep, 
the choicest, the loved of the flock, the 
furnishing the now mature Church of 
Christ with the wholesome food of the 
doctrine contained in his Epistles." 
Prof. Crosby marks the gradation thus : 
" 1. Feed my lambs, i. e. help the weak ; 
2. Guide and guard my sheep, i. e. coun- 
sel the strong ; 3. Feed my sheep, i. e. 
help the strong, for they too need feed- 
ing with the divine food of the word." 



It appears to me that to seek for 
any special significancy in the use of 
these terms, lambs and sheep, is to lose 
sight of that upon which the main 
stress is to be laid, and descend to 
mere verbal variations simply designed 
to give fulness and comprehensiveness 
to the direction. No one needs to be 
informed, that lambs and sheep include 
the whole flock, and are here employed 
to show that the pastoral care of Peter 
and all Christ's ministers, is to be exer- 
cised over all the members of the flock, 
young and old, strong and infirm, rich 
and poor, high and low, without dis- 
tinction of age or condition. The em- 
phasis lies not so much in the words 
lambs and sheep, as in the reiterated 
question, lovest thou me, which pierces 
the heart of Peter to its inmost depths, 
and elicits from him each time a more 
earnest response, thou knowest that I 
love thee. To each asseveration of 
Peter, our Lord appends a direction 
couched in the briefest terms, but with- 
in the comprehensive sweep of which 
is embraced the whole duty of Christ's 
ministers to the flock committed to 
their care and supervision. The lan- 
guage slightly varies, as might be ex- 
pected where no necessity exists for 
adhering to a strict verbal repetition. 
Lambs and sheep, as has been remarked, 
embrace the whole flock. In like man- 
ner, the two verbs employed, namely, 
feed, and shepherd or guide as a shepherd, 
include every provision for the spir- 
itual wants of the flock, and every 
kind of supervision and care which 
may be requisite to lead them in the 
paths of righteousness. Such I con- 
ceive to be the simple explanation of 
the passage. In reaching it no vio- 
lence is done to the language, or laws 
of grammatical interpretation. There is 
no straining of terms, to elicit a sense 
other than that which is obvious and 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XXI. 



497 



lovest tliou me ? He saith unto 
him, Yea, Lord ; thou knowest 
that I love thee. '" He saith unto 
him, Feed my sheep. 

17 He saith unto him the third 
time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest 
thou me ? Peter was grieved 
because he said unto him the 
third time, Lovest thou me? 
And he said unto him, Lord, 
thou knowest all things ; * thou 

i Ac. 20 : 23; He. 13 : 20 ; 1 Pe.2 :25; &5: 2,4. 



natural. The duty of ministerial fidel- 
ity to all of Christ's flock, is that which 
on this occasion was enjoined upon 
Peter, and by inference upon all who 
are charged with the spiritual oversight 
of God's people. "Ministers ought to 
look upon Christ's people, as very seri- 
ously recommended to them, and there- 
fore should very seriously mind their 
work about them ; for therefore is 
this charge thrice laid on Peter, that 
he may mind it much." Hutcheson. 

16. The repetition is designed to im- 
part emphasis to the inquiry, and pro- 
duce a deep impression on Peter's 
mind. The words of this verse vary 
only from the preceding, by the substi- 
tution of sheep for lambs, to which ref- 
erence has been made in the preceding 
note. 

17. The thrice repeated question ad- 
dressed thus to Peter, corresponding as 
it did to the number of his denials, 
conveyed to his mind the idea of dis- 
trust in regard to his profession of love 
to his Lord. This brought so vividly 
to remembrance his former boast of 
fidelity and his awful fall, that he is 
filled with distress. As has been re- 
marked in Note on v. 15, our Lord 
in this third question changes the verb 
in lovest thou, to the one of lower im- 
port, which the self-distrust and mod- 
esty of Peter had prompted him to use, 
thus pressing the question home to his 
conscience in the qualified sense of his 
reply. It is as though he had said, 
' Are you assured that you love me with 
that personal love, that human affec- 
tion, indicated in the language of your 



knowest that I love thee. Jesus 
saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 

18 l Verily, verily, I say unto 
thee, When thou wast young, thou 
girdedst thyself, and walkedst 
whither thou wouldest : but wheu 
thou shalt be old, thou shalt 
stretch forth thy hands, and an- 
other shall gird thee, and carry 
thee whither thou wouldest not. 

ft Ch. 2:24,25; & 16:80. 
I Ck. 13:36; Ac. 12:3, 4. 



reply ? I do not ask now whether you 
are possessed of that highest type of 
love, to which my previous questions 
had reference. But arc you sure that 
you have that love for me, which in 
reply to my question, you have now 
avowed yourself to have ? ' In answer 
to this solemn and searching question, 
Peter repeats with greater emphasis 
his expression of love, appealing in 
confirmation thereof to the omniscient 
eye of his Lord, before which the hearts 
of all men lay fully exposed. He omits 
the yea, with which he had before in- 
troduced his protestations of love. In 
the midst of his sorrow at the thought, 
that his love should be called in ques- 
tion, he nevertheless exhibits something 
of his native vehemence, and he no 
longer depends upon his own feeble 
yea, but upon the higher and incon- 
trovertible thou knowest all things. This 
is rendered still more emphatic by his 
employment of a verb of stronger im- 
port in thou knowest that I love thee, 
than the one used in his previous re- 
plies, that signifying to knoto something 
of a person or thing ; this, to know the 
person or thing directly. This distinc- 
tion, which appears clearly in the orig- 
inal Greek, is not discernible in the 
English verb to know. It is evident, 
that Peter used it in reference to the 
omniscience of Jesus, to which he had 
just appealed. His reply therefore 
must be regarded as one of the strong- 
est protestations of love, which it was 
possible to make, and uttered with a 
conscious sincerity that feared not the 
searching eye of his Redeemer. 



498 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 



19 This spake he, signifying 
by what death he should glorify 

m 2 Pe. 1 : 14. 



18. The verily, verily, indicates as 
usual the announcement of an import- 
ant truth, to which Peter's attention is 
emphatically directed. On a former 
occasion, he had boasted of his readi- 
ness to die for his Master, sooner than 
to deny him (Matt 26 : 35 ; Mark 14 : 
31). Now his more modest and becom- 
ing language is, thou knowest that I love 
thee. Jesus however takes occasion to 
remind him of his former saying, and 
predicts its fulfilment, but not until his 
official labors should be interrupted by 
the infirmities of age. Then when he 
was old, he should be bound and led 
away to death, and by his courageous 
testimony to the truth verify his protes- 
tations of fidelity and love, which on 
the night of his Lord's betrayal had 
been made with such boastful temper, 
and. as the event showed with such im- 
perfect self-knowledge. No one can 
fail to see, that the incidents and lan- 
guage of this interview of Jesus with his 
repentant follower, have retrospective 
reference to his awful fall ; and that 
this is intended as a formal and public 
restoration of him to his Lord's favor 
and confidence, of which he had before 
been conscious in the increased joy, 
love, and peace of mind, which had 
succeeded his bitter tears of repentance 
(Matt. 26 : 75 ; Mark 14 : 72 ; Luke 22 : 
62). When thou wast young ; literally, 
younger, in comparison with the time 
of his life referred to in, when thou shalt 
be old. " It includes his life up to the 
time prophesied of." Alford. Thougird- 
edst thyself, &c. Spontaneous, free, un- 
restricted movement is here designat- 
ed, in opposition to the deprivation of 
personal liberty, referred to in, l thou 
shalt stretch forth thy hands (in order 
that they may be nailed or bound to 
the cross), and another shall gird thee, 
i. e. bind thee to the cross.' That this 
is the true exposition of these clauses, 
is seen by the interpretation in v. 19. 
There seems to be an allusion in the 
words thou girdedst thyself, to the gird- 



God. And when he had spoken 
this, he saith unto him, Follow 
me. 



ing of his fisher's coat about him (v. 7), 
preparatory to his casting himself into 
the sea. This act was so characteristic 
of Peter's self-reliant and impulsive 
spirit, that our Lord illustrates thereby 
his present exemption from all restraint, 
compared with the compulsory force 
and restraint with which in his old age 
he should be led to death. The same 
may be said of his stretching forth his 
hands to swim to the shore, compared 
with the extending them to be fastened 
to the transverse beam of the cross. 
The form of expression, thou shalt 
stretch forth thy hands, corresponding 
as it does with thou girdedst thyself, in- 
dicates voluntary activity, yet at the 
command of the executioner. The idea 
is that Peter would manifest no reluc- 
tance or hesitation to die for the cause 
of his Lord. He would stretch out his 
hands, voluntarily, nay even joyfully, to 
testify his love and fidelity to Jesus 
by suffering martyrdom in his behalf. 
Yet it would be nevertheless true, that 
he would do this at the command of 
the executioner, and be bound to the 
cross and elevated thereon through 
physical constraint. The words carry 
thee whither thou wouldest not, in this 
connection, must refer to the suspension 
of Peter upon the cross ; unless we sup- 
pose that these clauses are inverted, and 
that reference is had to the previous 
act of carrying his cross to the place of 
execution. The phrase thou wouldest 
not, refers to the shrinking back of 
weak humanity from a violent death, 
but not to the unwillingness of Peter to 
die for Jesus. 

19. Signifying, i. e. in order thereby 
to signify. By what death, i. e. by what 
kind of death. That Peter suffered 
martyrdom there can be little doubt. 
Nothing short of a violent death at the 
hands of his enemies can satisfy the 
conditions of this prophecy. It is an 
ecclesiastical tradition, that he was 
crucified with his head downwards, at 
Kome, during the reign of the emperor 



A. D. 33.] 



CHAPTER XXI. 



499 



20 Then Peter, turning about, 

seetk the disciple n whom Jesus 

loved following ; which also 

leaned on his breast at supper, 

» Oh. 13:23, 25; & 20: 2. 

Nero. Follow me. It is probable, that 
when Jesus addressed this command to 
Peter, he began to walk slowly along. 
This rendered the direction emphatic 
and impressive, but furnishes no proof 
whatever, that the command is to be 
taken in a physical sense. It was a re- 
petition of that, which some three years 
previous had been given to Peter and 
some of his fellow-disciples on the shore 
of this same lake (Matt. 4: 19; Mark 
1:17). It is as though Jesus had said : 
* Although martyrdom lies in your very 
pathway, and must inevitably be en- 
dured by you, yet what I said to you 
on the occasion of my calling you to be 
my disciple, I now repeat, and with still 
greater emphasis, follow me. As I re- 
fused not to die, in order to fulfil the 
great purpose of my mission, so do you 
in like manner, hesitate not to seal with 
your death, the testimony which I have 
chosen you to bear to the truth of my 
gospel.' 

19. Some expositors think that both 
Peter and John mistook our Lord's 
direction to mean an actual physical 
following him to some other part of the 
lake, or perhaps to that mountain, 
" where Jesus had appointed them " 
(Matt. 28 : 16). But if the act was, as 
we suppose, symbolical of that spiritual 
following of him which is enjoined upon 
all his disciples, we can hardly doubt 
that both Peter and John apprehended 
its full significancy. No sooner was 
the command given, than Peter began 
to follow his Lord, and either having 
his attention arrested by the sound of 
footsteps behind him, or looking around 
from some mere impulse, he observed 
John also following Jesus. The disciple 
whom Jesus loved, &c. This reference 
of the Evangelist to himself, is designed 
to show the reason why John also fol- 
lowed Jesus in the manner here refer- 
red to. The intimacy which existed be- 
tween his Lord and him, rendered it 



and said, Lord, which is he that 
betrayeth thee ? 

21 Peter seeing hirn saith to 
Jesus, Lord, and what shall this 
man do ? 

morally impossible that the one should 
depart from the place and the other 
not follow him. 

21. Peter seeing him. A repetition 
from seeth the disciple, in the preceding 
verse, in consequence of the interven- 
ing parenthesis. What shall this man 
do? Literally, but this one, what? The 
phrase is elliptical, and the words to be 
supplied must be drawn from the pre- 
ceding context. Our Lord had just 
predicted what sort of death Peter 
should undergo. This inquiry there- 
fore respecting John, according to all 
the laws of interpretation, must refer 
to the manner in which he was to de- 
part from life. Our English version, 
which supplies the verb do, is manifestly 
incorrect. The rendering should be, 
what shall befall or happen to this one ? 
The pronoun is emphatic, as though 
Peter pointed to John with the finger. 
Various motives have been assigned to 
Peter's question. One thing is very 
evident, that it arose from the purest 
motives of friendship ; for on such an 
occasion, and having just been address- 
ed in such searching and solemn terms, 
it is incredible that Peter should have 
been prompted to propose this inquiry 
through envy or jealousy. What then, 
was the predominant cause? Some at- 
tribute it to a friendly concern and anxi- 
ety in regard to his future labors and 
trials. So Ebrard : " Peter asked with 
concern what should befall John." 
Lange: "With a feeling of sympathy 
which would spare to John the experi- 
ence of a sharp destiny, such as he con- 
sidered the lot of himself alone." Fik- 
enscher says : " He hoped to share with 
John the glory of a death of martyr- 
dom." He finds in the question, there- 
fore, " an illustration of true love which 
seeketh not its own." Such conjectures 
as to the motive of the question might 
be multiplied tenfold. It appears to me 
that the inquiry is to be interpreted 



500 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



22 Jesus saith unto him, If I 
will that he tarry ° till I come, 

o Mat. 1G: 27, 28 : & 25 : 31 ; 1 Co. 4 : 5 ; & 11 : 
2G ; Kc. 2 : 25 ; & 3 : 11 ; & 22 : 7, 20. 



in the light of the evident rebuke which 
it called forth from Jesus. In view of 
the what is that to thee ? or more liter- 
ally, what to thee ? we can hardly hesi- 
tate to attribute it, in part at least, to 
curiosity as to what should befall his 
friend — not idle curiosity (Tholuck) — 
but a desire to know the future trials, 
labors, and kind of death, which in the 
apostolic allotment should fall to John, 
his beloved friend and associate. In 
requital for a former question which he 
proposed to Jesus at the instance of 
Peter (13 : 24), and thinking that he was 
too timid to ask it concerning himself, 
Peter prefers the question in his stead. 
This is Stier's explanation. For this 
curiosity and friendly officiousness, our 
Lord rebukes the disciple, whom he had 
a moment before so highly honored by 
revealing the glorious death which he 
would suffer in His behalf. As on a 
previous occasion, his encomium upon 
Peter's faith (Matt. 16-1*7-19), was fol- 
lowed by a sharp rebuke for his officious 
and mistaken interference in regard to 
the object for which Jesus came into 
the world; so here his ill-timed curi- 
osity, and forwardness to speak for his 
friend, was met with a decided, if not a 
stern reproof. 

22. If I will that he tarry, &c. This 
passage has received a variety of in- 
terpretations, and doubtless will always 
remain open to criticism and conjec- 
ture. The obscurity rests upon the 
phrase till I come, inasmuch as the 
word tarry (literally remain), without 
doubt refers to a continuance of life, 
an abiding on earth. In regard to 
this coming of Christ, there are three 
modes of explanation, all of which are 
supported by names of unquestionable 
authority in the domain of biblical 
criticism. Aside from these are many 
interpretations, too fanciful to merit 
even a passing reference. These three 
modes of interpretation are respective- 
ly based on our Lord's three comings ; 
one at the hour of death ; another, 



what is that to thee ? follow thou 
me. 



His coming to destroy Jerusalem, and 
put an end to the Jewish persecuting 
power ; and the third, to which the 
first two are subordinate and secondary, 
His coming at the last day to judge 
the world. Augustine, Bede, Grotius, 
Miiller, Lange, and Olshausen, refer the 
expression here made use of to our 
Lord's coming at the hour of death. 
But did He not come in this sense to 
Peter and the rest of the apostles? 
Was not this coming as referable to death 
by martyrdom, as the slow and gentle 
wasting away of life through old age ? 
This sense is not only frigid and inapt, 
but absolutely without any show of 
reason ; or as Sticr after Li'tcke says, 
"it is a meaningless thought, that the 
disciple should live until he died." 
Others, as Bengel, Stier, Alford, Web- 
ster, and Wilkinson, refer it to the com- 
ing of our Lord to destroy Jerusalem. 
Trench and Tholuck explain it as refer- 
ring to the coming of Christ to the last 
judgment. They regard it as a sup- 
posed case: 'if it be my pleasure, that 
he abide alive on earth until I come to 
judgment, what concern of thine is it? ' 
All'ord argues that a hypothesis of this 
sort would be strangely incongruous, 
especially in these last solemn days of 
his presence on earth. On the other 
hand, if the language is not hypotheti- 
cal, the well-authenticated fact, that 
John actually died, shows conclusively 
that reference must have been had to 
a coming of Christ, which took place 
before his death and consequently be- 
fore the grand event of the final judg- 
ment. In view of this and much more 
which might be advanced to the same 
effect, I cannot hesitate to adopt the 
second mode of explanation, which re- 
fers the phrase to our Lord's coming, 
to take vengeance upon the unbelieving- 
Jews, and put an end to the old dis- 
pensation. This accords with the facts 
of history. John lived to see the de- 
struction of Jerusalem and the downfall 
of Judaism. It is highly probable 



A. D. 



CHAPTER XXI. 



501 



23 Then went this saying 
abroad among the brethren, that 
that disciple should not die : yet 
Jesus said not unto him, He 
shall not die ; but, If I will that 
he tarry till I come, what is that 
to thee ? 

2-4 1 This is the disciple which 
testifieth of these things, and 

pCh. 10: 35; 3 Jo. 12. 

that this chapter, if not the whole of 
his Gospel, was written after that catas- 
trophe (see Preface to the Gospel). 
If so his language must have been 
fully intelligible to those of his readers, 
who had been made acquainted with 
the prediction. He had survived the 
coming of Jesus to destroy his ene- 
mies ; and this furnished ground for 
an impression which extensively pre- 
vailed in the churches, that he would 
never die. All this seems clearly to 
indicate, that the exposition which re- 
fers the words to the destruction of 
Jerusalem, is the correct one. Inas- 
much however as many believers who 
had personal intercourse with Jesus 
lived to see this event, and as there 
seems in this implied promise of Jesus 
to have been some special favor be- 
stowed upon John, I am inclined to 
believe with Stier, that the revelations 
in Patmos, the behold I come quickly! 
which found its primary fulfilment in 
the coming of Christ to take vengeance 
upon his Jewish enemies, are included 
in the expression. So Luthardt sup- 
poses, that as John beheld those events 
[i. e. those of the Apocalypse], they 
must have been referred to in this ex- 
pression of our Lord's coming, either 
directly or subordinated. The pronoun 
thou, in the reiterated command follow 
thou me, is emphatic, and contrasts 
Peters own duty and obligations, with 
his inquisitive spirit in regard to the 
manner and time of John's death. 

23. This saying is explained by the 
following clause, that that disciple should 
not die. The term brethren, was then 
as now applied to believers in Christ. 
The expression is one of common use 



wrote these things : and p we 
know that his testimony is true. 

25 ? And there are also many 
other things which Jesus did, the 
which, if they should be written 
every one, r I suppose that even 
the world itself could not contain 
the books that should be written. 
Amen. 

qCh. 20:30. r Amos 7:1". 

in the Acts, and in the Epistles. He 
shall not die, i. e. be wholly exempt 
from death. If I will that he tarry, 
&c. It is evident that John assumes, 
that the coming of Jesus referred to 
had already taken place, and that the 
prediction had been fully accomplished. 
There was nothing, therefore, so far as 
the words of Jesus were concerned, to 
forbid his death, at any hour in which 
his Lord might see fit to call him to his 
presence. " John was earlier than the 
other disciples prepared for the death 
of martyrdom, as the most perfect 
sacrifice of obedience to God, and of 
love to God and man ; but that was 
the very reason why he was not to taste 
the martyr's death. John consummated 
in his life and natural death what the 
martyrs scaled in their final sacrifice, 
namely, the victorious manifestation of 
the love of God and man." Stier. This 
is made by Kaplinger the reason why 
all endeavors to put him to a violent 
death were vain. 

24. This verse completely identifies 
John, as the writer of this Gospel. Tliese 
things refers to the whole Gospel, and 
not to the last chapter merely. Here 
some expositors make the Gospel of 
John to end. What follows beginning 
with and we know, they ascribe to the 
church, as Luthardt thinks, the one at 
Ephesus. " The seal of her testimony 
to the historical truth is first impressed 
in a dignified and weighty manner by 
his testimony, and in the is true, the 
sea'i of her higher internal assurance of 
truth as a matter of faith." Stier. But 
the we know — which Alford remarks is 
in John's style (see 1 John 5: 18, 19, 
20, also 4: 14, 16) — followed as it is by 



502 



JOHN. 



[A. D. 33. 



/ suppose, furnishes no proof that a 
collection of persons, rather than a 
single individual, is referred to. See in- 
troductory remarks to this chapter. 
As to what is said about the indefinite- 
ness of I suppose, so different from the 
usual positiveness of John's style, the 
solution is to be sought in the strong 
hyperbole, which seemed to require the 
softened form of / think or suppose. 
In regard to the interchange of num- 
ber, the Evangelist in we know, refers 
not only to himself, but to such of his 
fellow Christians, as had either person- 
ally seen Christ, or had such an abun- 
dant measure of faith wrought in them 
by the Spirit, that the positive assertion 
we know, could as properly be predicated 
of them as of John. Or he may 
have retrospectively referred to the tes- 
timony which the apostles and disciples 
had borne of the acts and words of 
Jesus, to whose number John regarded 
himself as belonging, although at that 
time perhaps the only surviving one. 
But in regard to the declaration that 
the world itself had not sufficient ca- 
pacity to contain a record of all the 
works and words of Jesus, it was a 
matter of personal and private judg- 
ment, and the writer very properly 
employs the singular verb. Even if 
this were not so, the frequent and sud- 
den interchanges of number as well as 
of tense, employed by writers of the 
energy and vivacity of John, is too 
common to excite any surprise. We 
see therefore no necessity of attribut- 
ing those two verses to the church, 
countersigning, as Stier expresses it, 



the Gospel, or putting upon it her seal 
of testimony to its historical truth. 
The testimony of an inspired apostle 
stood in need of no such voucher from 
a church, composed of fallible men, who 
themselves needed the very guidance 
and instruction of the word, to the truth 
of which they are supposed to bear tes- 
timony. That his testimony is true. 
See 3 John 12. 

25. John here avows that ho has not 
pretended to write a history which em- 
braces all the doings of Jesus, but 
that his Gospel is of necessity fragmen- 
tary. Every one ; literally, one by one, 
in full detail. The expression, even the 
world itself could not contain, &c, is 
evidently hyperbolical. The simple 
idea is, that the detail would be so 
cumbrous and voluminous, that the 
usefulness of the history would be 
greatly abridged thereby. " Divine 
wisdom is as apparent in the limitation 
of the number and magnitude of the 
books that have been written by au- 
thority concerning the things which 
Jesus did, as it is in the plurality and 
variety of them. There are several, 
that we might have sufficiency of inde- 
pendent testimony ; many acts and 
words of Jesus are recorded, that we 
may become thoroughly acquainted 
with him and his blessed will; more 
have not been recorded, lest the mem- 
ory should be overwhelmed and con- 
fused, and lest the books should be- 
come the property of a few, or of a class, 
instead of being accessible and intelli- 
gible to all." Webster and Wilkinson. 



Nov . 3 1860. 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



air 



«m 



mm 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 399 587 2 • 



